While this is a great and impartial overview I'd say you skipped over 2nd edition's single biggest draw - highly evocative settings. This was the era of 'Al-Qadim', 'Birthright', 'Planescape' and 'Spelljammer' and the expansion of 'Ravenloft' into a sandbox setting in its own right. You also had the 'green cover' historical settings - 'The Glory of Rome', 'Vikings Campaign Sourcebook' and so on. True many of this could probably be retrofitted to later (or earlier) editions but as someone who cut his teeth on 2e I think they were an enormous amount of the charm of that era.
@@angrytheclown801 Wow I can't believe I forgot 'Dark Sun'. I guess that sort of proves the point though - 2nd edition was SO rich with great campaign settings you can actually forget even iconic ones came in with this era.
@@Zelkiiro But they wouldn't exist if 2nd edition hadn't arrived. So if you don't want to have to do a lot of serial number filing, it's there in 2nd. Useful to know.
@@angrytheclown801 If second edition D&D wasn't around, the editions after it wouldn't have existed, either. Furthermore, those settings could have been developed for rolemaster instead. If there is something specific about second edition that make it work better than other systems in those settings, that would be a point for 2e.
I started with AD&D 1st edition and never progressed beyond it. I even own a old Deities and Demigods book from before they changed it to Legends and Lore. We always took the rules as guidelines and adjusted things for more entertaining game play. As far as I'm concerned you really don't need more than those books and your imagination.
I used to play those and used 2nd edition for the extra stuff like skills. 1st edition was painful if you had an anal retentive DM. When I first started playing 1st edition, Ours really enjoyed torturing us as he was the only DM around. The tournament modules were the worst! I'm looking at you Caverns of Tsojcanth!
Roger that. Of all the D&D versions I've DMed, it's First that made me house rule the most. Hell, I tossed out entire pages of the DMG as being restricting and cumbersome. That said, some of the attitudes embodied in 1E have stayed with me to the present. You can take the gamer out of the old school, but you can't take the old school out of the gamer.
Yeah...when I look back at all my AD&D books...they take up such little space on my bookshelf, compared to 2nd Ed (or 3rd...). I've often thought of running a hybrid 1st/2nd game as there are elements of 2nd I did like...just not some of the bulk of all the optional rules they churned out as the Blume brothers drove TSR into the ground...
Same here, exactly. I was often DM and played super loose with the rules. For us it was much more about collaborative storytelling and almost no war gaming, so the rules almost didn't matter beyond establishing a common setting for us to explore. I never bought modules, and instead dreamed up a basic outline, invented a scenario, and drew a few scenes before starting. Then mostly improvised during the game. I was the DM, so I made the rules and my friends just rolled with it. We incorporated lots of comedy. So more Discworld than Tolkien. Monster Manual was the most important book for us.
I think the OSR community deserves a mention here - they’re devoted to creating new content compatible with most older editions, be they entirely new games, modules, etc. Since it’s an indie community filled with self-publishing, there’s lots of beautiful weird stuff that would never get published by a bigger company.
@@goji7273 Or "old School Rules". The community never settled on what thew R stands for. :D But yeah, so much wonderful stuff has been made, so many things that are sparking with mad creativity.
Aequus No worries; it’s a community I dig and I’m always happy to get the chance to talk about it. Honestly, the quantity and quality of free products is a good selling point for older editions by itself.
Agreed! A lot of it is compatible with itself, given the base inspiration systems. It helps that B/X D&D doesn't have as many moving parts to break, or has so many supplements that homebrewing stuff is redundant.
Call of Cthulhu - the game where you roll up new characters, travel to strange and exotic places, learn Secrets Man Was Not Meant To Know, things haunt you or chase you, the monsters or tomes make you go insane, the monsters kill you, you're buried, and the worms eat you - if you're VERY lucky it all happens in JUST THAT ORDER.
When I was 12 my best friend to this day introduced me to AD&D. We use that with a little second edition thrown in. Haven’t changed that and we have a blast every time we play. Whatever edition you know, like, and play is your edition.
@@OzoneInteractiveMegan 100% percent. It's all a means to an end. Getting together , being creative and having fun is the goal! Any of these systems can do that. These min maxers that want to cry about being OP etc have spent too much time playing video games lol As A DM, if I felt like a character was OP in any way shape or form, is it not my responsibility to find a creative way to counter that within the role playing? Seems like it to me :)
5:45: You could also try Old-School Essentials, which basically *is* B/X D&D, but which cleans up the editing and makes it significantly easier to get into.
I started my kids on Basic Fantasy, which is an OSR game much like the B/X edition with a few modern touches like ascending AC. Once they had the idea we went to 5E because I figured they'd like the modern experience and more powerful characters. A few months later they asked to go back to Basic Fantasy and we've been using it ever since. There is a lot to be said for fast and simple.
One thing I really like about older editions is the feeling that the world is not there to please you. It was easy to die, death mattered, just getting to where you want to be was a challenge and if you weren't careful, you would feel the consequences. That didn't make old editions better because some players really don't want those elements in their games, but it makes them better for some players.
I agree with this mostly but I do think it objectively makes older editions better. I feel modern players have become to o coddled. My favorite edition is BX, it is what I always thought D&D was supposed to be.
Yeah, I find myself missing the old-school deadly playstyle, when having a character survive to Name Level was a true achievement. But I also appreciate the modern paradigm that allows you to get really *invested* in a long-running character's growth and storyline
Gotta say, 3.5 is pretty solid. Especially when you allow homebrew tweaks of classes for balancing purposes (namely helping martials with variety in abilities).
Interesting factoid about AD&D vs. Basic: while AD&D was marketed as being for more experienced players, Basic was actually very popular among groups who coupled mastery of the rules with a desire to stretch them in new directions. The simplicity of B/X meant it was easy to tinker with and make your own. Which meant while the Stranger Things kids were more likely to graduate to AD&D as soon as they could, groups of older players who wanted more politics and domain management, or science-fantasy shenanigans, or to rework the game with extensive house-rules, were more likely to build on a B/X base.
My original group playing 1AD&D absolutely pulled a lot of stuff from the Companion and Masters supplements to incorporate into the game. I'm still a big fan of bringing a lot of the 1AD&D feel into my 3.5/PF1 games. While I appreciate 5e for what it is (and could not stand 4 - I felt like I was just playing WoW), we always go back to 3.5/PF1 for the incredible number of supplements to pull from. If something is imbalanced, we just fix it.
Once my group realized that B/X>AD&D wasn't a *required* progression, we happily used the simpler ruleset in actual session play, with AD&D's broader options layered on top. That is still my preferred playstyle to this day. It's fun introducing new(-er) players to concepts like 2d6 NPC Morale rolls
This was a compact, level-headed and pretty impartial comparison between often (unnecessarily) controversial subject. No lies detected, neither deep layers of nostalgic patina, nor neophilic derision (two dominant attitudes, which frequently haunt these analyses and edition war discussions). I'd prefer more deep dives for the future, but regardless of my personal preference, this was well done for what it was trying to achieve. Although I have to confess, that there was something I hadn't heard before, that the old Mentzer D&D boxed sets had the common acronym BECMI (probably because they never released all of them around here. Only Basic and Expert Rules, if my memory serves).
@@xvariable1521 Yeah sure, I know it now (I did watch the video after all), but that was the first time I've heard anybody call it that. In here (Finland), people have always referred it as either Mentzer D&D, or the red box D&D, or basic D&D contra AD&D. The company which had rights to import / distribute and translate BECMI in Finland went out of business quite quickly, and never released anything except Basic and Expert Rules I believe (or maybe it was just the Basic, that was the one people had if they had any, like I did), and some adventure modules (Rahasia and couple others). Wouldn't make sense to refer it as BECMI back then, because there really wasn't true international scene back then before the internet truly took off, thus most of us were quite unaware of products which weren't officially released in this country. It's just a small tidbit I've missed in my about two decades experiences of D&D, and I was merely remaking that in otherwise well-made if basic video, there was something I wasn't aware of at all (in relation in which I was hoping for more deep dives, and less basic and material aimed at beginners).
@Aleksander Stromfors: Sadly, I find this to be a problem with far more things than just D&D. Just look at discussions about the Movie Spider-Men; many of my fellow Raimi fans tend to be overly dismissive of the MCU Spider-Man, while most younger people who only know the MCU Spider-Man just hate on and dismiss the Raimi films to no end. Sad really.
@@daniellauricella5132 I am not that much bothered by quarrelsomeness, divisiveness or dismissiveness as such. I don't think there even is a larger community in any meaningful sense, nor do D&D or RPGs even require something like that. There doesn't need to be a large scale cooperation or conformity, and tbh I can hardly see any reasons why something like that would even be desirable. People are not going to come together, and obligatory respect each others preferences or opinions, or form a common identity or unified and normative culture around D&D / RPGs. My problem is more with the discourse about edition wars, which mostly just doesn't give anything to me. Often it's largely fruitless and tends to go on eternally around couple familiar circles. It's rarely very analytical, in a way which would actually expand anybody's understanding about actual differences between editions. Instead of perpetuating whatever public image each edition happens to have at any given time. This has been going-on as long as I've been around, some particulars and editions may change, but fundamentals are about same now as they were decade or two ago.
THIS IS NOT A KNOCK ON 4E. (Just to be clear.) I played 1e in the eighties. 2e didn't grab me, although many of its settings did (Planescape, Spelljammer, Ravenloft). I no longer played when 3e came out, but it looked interesting; I particularly liked things like the redone saving throws, which made more sense. 4e made no sense to me. It was the clearest example of a Kuhnian paradigm shift that I'd ever experienced. It truly was (to me) like a completely foreign language. More power to you for enjoying it.
My friends and I had a blast playing 4e for the entirety of its publishing. It was fun for what it was. 5e was a refreshing return to a more “traditional” style of D&D tho
@👌🏼 okay honestly why not ? What is so wrong with letting us enjoy what we enjoy? I can not rap my head around this mindset so I genuinely want to hear why you think this ?
I started my D&D life in 1981 -- a race between my best friend and I to buy the latest and greatest. I love traditional board games so picked up DUNGEON by TSR (the predecessor to all of the co-op WoC board games {which still holds it's own}) and he D&D Basic. We quickly moved to AD&D. Some 40yrs later we now play a hybrid (HOUSE RULED) version adapting minor elements from each version (thank the gods for the internet) but it still remains AD&D 1e for me. I have played every version and of all of the if I had to give up AD&D I would play 3.5
That's interesting. I also started in 1981 and still have the original 1E books. I haven't played it as a board game since the early 90's, but it was very interesting to know what's changed from this video. It was the complexity of 1E that I found fascinating. I've always had the urge to play again, but never got around to it. Maybe one day? I've played it as a PC game. The Balders Gate series was amazing and seemed to tick many of the important boxes for me. I guess that was based around 2E? or 3E? as it came out in 1998? It's good to know there are still people out there who play it face to face. They didn't ruin the game with the later editions did they?............edit: I've just noticed that Balders gate 3 will be released next month. That should be interesting.
The big thing I hated about 4e was the huge number of books involved. Rule books that had like 5 character subclasses total as pages were needed for all the powers (many of which repeated under different names between the classes anyway).
Look into "13th Age". It's what happened when the 4e designers no longer had to include any D&D-isms. I'd say it's the "Pathfinder 2e of D&D 4e", in a way. I'm not actually a big fan of the system, but I've been in a few campaigns with it, and I definitely get that 4e feeling from it.
I read your comment before I got to the 4th Edition section of the video and was convinced I was going to say "No you're wrong, you're just being a wishful thinker!" but actually after learning more about 4th Edition's strengths as opposed to just its weaknesses I found I agree with you! A WotC TTRPG card game that really gets the most our of the grid-based format?? That sounds really exciting. Like some modern version of chess almost.
I think it should at least have been a spinoff that could have been advertised as a War Game/RPG hybrid. Call it "Dungeons and Dragons: Conquest" or something.
@Thomas Taylor Still running 2nd edition since it absorbed all the other editions, even the Known World was absorbed by 2nd edition as Mystara, though the line never received the attention it deserved due to the financial crisis. Still, I use modules and material from the earlier editions since they are part of the lore.
I don't know which is the best, but like everyone having their favorite Doctor being their first, I was raised on AD&D in 1979, and that's always been the one for me. Tomb of Horrors baby, Tomb of Horrors.
Tomb of Horrors was the best way to die. Repeatedly. :) I just don't see any of the 3e and up editions capturing what made some of the old modules so fun to "lose" while playing and have you eagerly come back for more.
Old School Essentials would be my suggestion for people wanting to explore B/X. It is a 100% faithful recreation of the rules, whereas Labyrinth Lord takes some artistic license and changes some mechanics due to the understanding of the OGL at the time of its writing. Both are great, but OSE is a more faithful recreation.
Labyrinth Lord has one big advantage right now and that's cost. I can pick up the soft cover version + PDF from DriveThruRPG for about $20. OSE is $20 for just the PDF and currently hard copies + PDF are $40 for the cheapest version of the book. The guys behind Labyrinth Lord also have the Advanced Edition Companion which is pretty close to 1st Ed AD&D, which you can get for the same price (soft cover + PDF). Also, both are available as free PDF downloads although the artwork has been removed, so you can at least check them out. Then there's Mutant Future which is pretty much 1st ed Gamma World (also available as a free no-picture PDF). This also includes the rules for using MF characters in LL.
@@JMcMillen If you're looking for price in the B/X clones Basic Fantasy is free in pdf form and the printed versions are sold at cost. Very, very cheap.
@@andrewcavanagh3946 At the time of my comment; Labyrinth Lord, Advanced Labyrinth Lord, & Mutant Future (Gamma World) all had free PDF versions available from Goblinoid Game. The free versions didn't include any artwork but all the rules were there. Unfortunately, the whole OGL debacle caused them to take them down as they are going to be rewritten to not need the OGL. However, as they were freely available, you might be able to find them other places if you poke around.
Interesting comment and I think it just goes to show why every edition is still played today. I also have loved to play every single edition. And I probably spent more hours playing 3rd than any other edition. But today it is probably the only edition I wouldn't play. It is just so cumbersome for me. The last time I played, I was playing an Archer, and having to recalculate all of my bonuses every single round got tiring. Not just rapid shot and Point black shot, but bless and haste and a variety of other bonus, like a ranged smite, or arcane arrows. that I was getting every round was just annoying.
@@teraxe I 100% understand what you are saying. It is absolutely true that too many modifiers/options/variables in one turn could easily get super tiresome for a player (veteran or new to the game alike). It could be tiresome even for the rest of the party!. But, using the archer example, for me and my friends that capacity of engineering that perfect shot, getting all kind of buffs from our allies, feats, spells and terrain bonuses on top of the class features was just too good!
For pathfinder you have the same problem as well. For my 8th level archer I had to use q big table because calculating the modifiers on my own each round (deadly aim, point blank shot, different kinds of favored enemy) for all 4 arrows he would shoot was just to cumbersome
@@Seelenverheizer Except it doesn't. It streamlined the rules and made characters far too overpowered. In streamlining, it lost both variety and depth. There was real adversity in AD&D and you could die if you didn't roleplay smart. If you can just fight your way out of any encounter, if vampires are reduced to just merely a toothless boss monster, if every character is designed for optimal builds(like it's a fighting game) instead of roleplay then you lose some of what made the game special
@@RandomAllen 2e ADnd sure is a bit cleaned up but its not that much easier (at least if you dont use the complete series of class books which are OP) 2e in my book is quite dangerous and you never want to take a fight without beeing heavily advantaged.
@@RandomAllen, Things like giving wizards more than 1 spell a day doesn't make them OP. In fact there is nothing OP about the transitions of 3.X. Those made it more realistic. If you are arguing about 5e & maybe 4e than yes, some is OP. I don't like how a wizard has the same chance of weapon attack as a fighter.
I personally prefer 3.5. I've run it custom for a great many years and players have enjoyed the style. heck, my player will tell you they don't mind making a new char after death because of how I set up char creation. You always feel like you have a great starting char.
@Joe Blow i grew up on gen 1 and love 2nd and was reluctant to get into 3rd, till lost all my 2nd edition books in an accident. So I tried 3rd and fell in love with it. Now I've perfected my DMing style and the game flows wonderfully.
Opposing viewpoint, i like rolling stats and getting as close to the classic 3d6 straight down method as my GM (or my players if I'm running), the CR system has always made it easy for GMs to make most combats a cakewalk. What I do as GM to empower players is give them faster feat gain.
@@keithsimonh 3d6 down the line is something I tend to avoid for more modern D&D, but am happy to use for older games. I mean, in 3.5, if you start out as a wizard with only a 13 intelligence, then your spells are easy to save against, you have fewer spell slots, and once you hit level 11, you start being unable to cast the highest level spells that should be available to you. In AD&D, on the other hand, you are limited to level 6 spells (so you don't gain 7th level spells at 13th level), but it doesn't affect spell saves, and this is at a point that the majority of characters will never reach. I would be happy to play a character with a 9 in their class's main stat in AD&D - they're still entirely playable at single digit levels. A first level fighter with 9 strength will still have a +1 to hit and +2 to damage with their chosen weapon - the same bonus a non-fighter with 18 strength gets. A first level wizard with 9 intelligence can cast just as well as a first level wizard with 18 intelligence (though will have trouble learning new spells and a lower limit on how many they can know), and if they still have 9 intelligence by level 7, they're still able to cast 4th level spells. In 3.5, a fighter with 9 strength is a really bad fighter, and a wizard with 9 intelligence is a commoner who can't even cast the simplest of cantrips.
@@Parker8752 but by 11th level that wizard's Int can be 15, not sure if you accounted for that because I reject build optimisation as a flawed ideology, and thus I don't have the spell tables memorized, though i recognize some people enjoy it. Further than that, spells by level tends to get thrown out in favor of more in-depth spell research and discovery when the players take up my more adventurous homebrew modules. I'm strongly biased though because of a longtime former friend having a small fit because, on standard rolls, they weren't able to get the three 18s they needed to make some netdecked monstrosity of a build work. You never have to choose your class before you roll either, in fact, the primary source of fun in the 3d6 down method is it can suggest builds that you'd normally never consider because under 'more optimal' play they aren't viable under ideal circumstances.
@@keithsimonh I did take the two stat bumps into account - at 15 int, you can cast 5th level spells, which you get at 9th level. At level 11, you get 6th level spells, which you then have to wait until level 12 to actually use. Now everything I'm saying here comes with the obvious caveat of if your players enjoy it, then you're obviously not doing anything wrong. However, if you want to be a fighter who does more than just stand there and full attack, you need at least two 13s to take the required feats - something that most 3d6 arrays won't provide, and that if done in order, you are even less likely to get the required stats. Want to fight with rapier and dagger (a very common combo historically), or wants to be able to smack people in the face with a shield (again, common tactic)? If you don't have a 15 Dexterity, that'll be a no. Want to shoot more than once per six seconds? Dexterity 13, or wait until BAB 6. Want to disarm a humanoid foe without getting smacked in the face? Int 13 or bust. Much of this is down to the designers of the game not knowing much about medieval/renaissance combat, sure, and this can be easily rectified by reducing or eliminating stat requirements for certain feats, but yeah; most of the more interesting mechanics are effectively locked behind stat requirements, and given that on average, your highest stat with 3d6 will be a 13, that makes it really hard to even take fun but less than optimal combinations. Again, this is why I'd be fine with 3d6 in order for AD&D 2e - pretty much none of the mechanics are locked behind having a stat at a minimum level (beyond the prerequisites for entering the class in the first place, of course). Using the Complete Fighter's Handbook, I can specialise in two weapon fighting, pick up a sword and dagger, and only use my dagger attacks for parries - and this only requires the 9 strength that I needed to become a fighter in the first place.
3.5 is probably what I've played/run the most. I started on 2E, but I was a kid at the time and it was coming to the end of it's life-cycle, so I gravitated towards 3rd as that was in print. I'll run 5E if I'm with a group of total beginners who are barely familiar with the concept of table-top rpgs. It's fun, but lacks the sheer breadth of options I've grown used to.
Same. Although I am starting to stroll into less crunchy systems lately, but PF 1e is where the sweet spot is for me as well. I am lately playing 4e as a skirmish mini game and it's relatively good, but as an rpg is meh, 5e is OK but one gets bored of the system and it's massive limitations quickly. 2e with some of the stupid restrictions like kits and classes being race limited, is also really good. I am really interested in seeing how the Savage Worlds Pathfinder thing works out, it could be a better gateway than 5e.
I really appreciate you giving 4th edition a fair shake. You nailed the demographic who liked it with the footage from Final Fantasy Tactics. It's the favorite game among many in my circle of friends, so we loved 4e.
My son loved 4e, until I had him play with our pathfinder group (3.5 ish lol) and he quickly realized what a different game it was and he never went back to 4e. To each their own though :)
I personally like 4e better than 5e because they're more similar than you'd think, it's just that 4e is better balanced and says many of the unspoken or informal rules on the paper which I always preferred over having to figure out what the designers want to build I also never liked the Quadratic Wizard, Linear Fighter issue because it just means the fighter feels useless at any level higher than 8th in 5e, and in 5e the Wizard felt useable before 8th and stronger after, but in 4e, everyone was around the same power
I started playing tabletop with 4th edition D&D and Call of Cthulhu my first semester of college, back in 2015. I've played and run a great many games since, and to this day no other RPG system lets me run a satisfying combat session like 4e. Finally starting a game of it after a three year hiatus.
I think my favorite retroclone is Basic Fantasy RPG. It takes the basic idea of 1st edition and replaces the THAC0 system with the more modern d20 mechanics.
Same! The community has plenty of adventures and supplements to use, and the modern factors such as ascending AC are a blessing. BFRPG is how I cut my teeth on retroclones, and it's the one to beat for me.
@@tubekiller26 I've made a few attempts at giving the 2nd ed rules the Basic Fantasy treatment, but haven't written everything down. To be honest, I'd like the complexity of 2nd edition, and their thief skill rules are arguably better.
There's also Dave Arneson/M.A.R. Barker style tabletop campaign. No rule books. Just a campaign folder, a map, a general idea of setting and genre, and a simple dice resolution mechanic like an opposed roll, and just make shit up as you go along. It actually works quite a bit better than one might assume with a fair and impartial referee and creative and willing players.
To each his own, I enjoyed a 4E group because the DM was very good proving that the edition doesn't matter as long as you have someone running the campaign that is good at what he or she does. Personally, 3.5 is my favorite though. Can't get into 5e as much as the more "rules" heavy systems
Same, Ive a blast with 4e, as a player and as a DM. 3.5 was my entry point in d&d but the martial gap with caster clases was so high that i didnt enjoyed it so much. Also more rules heavy than 3.5? is that a joke? xD
This is an excellent point, I have played some terrible game systems with really great DMs and/or players and some really good systems with some really bad DMs and/or people (bad at gaming that is).
Started in 3.5, moved to 4 & 5. Sold everything and now I'm happy playing OD&D clones and Basic Fantasy RPG. BFRPG is based on the 3.5 OGL, simplifies it to the level of Basic D&D and also it's FREE on PDF, and $5 print. The adventures are $3 print and free on PDF.
@@skjoldrbjorn I doubt it's an ad bot, as Basic Fantasy is more of a fan-supported project than a polished product. It's not a bad game at all, but it sits in a middle ground between Basic and Advanced which leaves me wondering why not use one of those rule sets instead.
@@benbattiste1041 in many ways it is much closer to Basic (hence the name) but the similarities to Advanced have more to do with using the SRD from 3.5 to flesh it out.
About to run my first game of BFRPG this week. Super excited about the system, especially because every player can get a copy of the book for $5 printed. Have played 3.5, 4, pathfinder, and 5.
Started playing in 1977. Played every edition for at least a little bit, but always end up going back to 2e. In my opinion it was the most fun to play, even if it got a bit silly with how many handbooks they issued.
I really liked 3.5, but it burnt my brain. There was just too much to juggle compared to earlier editions, which I think is what spawned most people's re-interest in old skool rules.
@@SophiaAphrodite, AD&D totally was a total hardcore mess of fool rules. I mean why would the designers make some races longer lived but put a limit on their levels? I liked what seemed to be Wizard's vision of making it easier and more realistic rules in 3.X. But 4e threw out the rules completely, and 5e brings a whole new set of rules.
2nd édition all the way for me, and it's definitly not because i own like 10 or more Monsters Manuals of every sorts ;). For us, it was a cleaned up version of the sometimes messy 1rst edition without going too far from 1rst. Major con was, that in your character devellopment it was better to forsee access to magic at any point (via multi or dual classing). Magic users of any kind were soooo fun to play (half giant war/psionist to simple mage or cleric/thief for exemples). But plain war and even thief were kinda boring in the long run imo Saving throw were to be used vvveerrrrry cautionly by dm, one life or death throw was fun from times to times, but loosing a loved char because you failed your 10th saving throw in the evenning, meehhh :/. I personnaly had to rework the magic resistance system A LOT but in the end i liked it :) (first decision was to remove the fact that a creature was able to lower its magic resistance to benefit from certain spells, my point of view was, you are resistant or you are not, but it's not a decision etc etc ;) ) So all in all, with very little twinking from here and there, and the game was really satisfying.
The only thing I changed in regards to magic resistance was the dispelling effect in regards to in place spells as that seemed more powerful than it should be. I also found precedent in some of the material that the dispelling effect was not used in settings with a lot of magic resistant creatures, like Planescape for it wrecked too many magical effects. I never made the change you did with magic resistance though as some creatures couldn't control magic resistance like the firbolg. It would seem odd that drow cannot benefit from their own spells due to their high magic resistance. Instead, I went with all the spells and abilities that were designed to lower, bypass, or ignore magic resistance. I do agree thieves can get boring, especially if they are basic and not multi-classed. In fact they are almost unnecessary at time for the other classes can perform many of their abilities. But fighters are a must, especially if you give them the upgrade of weapon mastery which makes them so much better. One didn't need to have access to magic, but it is better if they have access to something that is more than a basic ability of any class, whether that is mastery, acrobatics, or some other nifty trick.
idk fighter with weapon mastery goes brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Thief sucks very much tho. I tried to much to fix thief but it just kinda doesnt work if you as a DM do not shoehorn stuff in really hard to have the thief actually be not completly useless.
@@Seelenverheizer How long does it go brrrrrrr? I've heard AD&D had less problems with limiting martial characters than 3rd edition (no mobility issues to do their job) but that casters still grow far more powerful at the higher levels. I'm just curious the breaking point where a player in an equal level party is likely to start wishing they were playing a caster (particularly a Magic User) instead
@@priestesslucy in 2e you basicly want to go with 2 fighters 1 cleric and 1 mage. What makes fighters good is how their to hit chance goes up every level while they can at level 5 get +3 to hit and damage from becoming a weapon master which is quite good while they can stack AC with shields as well. Clerics are best when wearing heavy armour as well with shield etc. Early on they can kind of keep pace with the warriors in fighting while also having good spells them only getting +2 to hit every 3 levels as well as not beeing able to specialises/master a weapon does make them becomeing more about spellcasting, buffing and the melee is a backup or if the frontline needs to grind. The mage is there for buffs, aoe damage as well as ulility. Whats cool is that this composition stays the same along the levels. Warrior scales well and dont expant resources. Wizzards and clerics bring the buffs and the utility. Doubling up on mages and clerics PC whise has extremly diminishing returns. Also around lvl 9 one can expect some fallowers and henchmen to actually be low lvl clerics or mages which can be usefull to have them bring some obsucre utility spells or additonal healing but that best left for NPCs. Once mages reach around 8th level spells its where they start to actually getting out of hand. Still they only tend to have like 20-25 HP an can get slain by a single attack quite easily. Also the way high level monsters scale their saves tend to become 3+ and 40-70% magic resistance on top so mages bring the buffs but the swords do the talking. One really strong variation of that party is to have a multiclassed fighter/cleric which does make the cleric level a bit slower but that PC is a much better warrior, is tankier and cant multiple attacks per round. Its a lot about dropping 1-2 rounds of buffs and then reinforcing the fighters in the frontline. So the 3 main classes arent balanced between them but you still want to have them all in the party. Sadly Thief is completely worthless shit for its abilities are done better by lvl 2 spells and their hitbonuses are awefull, they even have the worst saves and wierdly enought they arent even good at non weapon proficiencies. One can help the thief by multiclassing but the thief simply drags every other class down. Keep the class for the henchmen or let the player that really want to play thief start with 2-3 more levels then the rest. They level faster which does balance them out a tiny bit but still. Over the years i have tried multiple houserule buffs but i have never really found a good spot for them other then making them more closely resemble a fighter with some mundane tricks up their sleeve.
@@priestesslucy If you play 2e games starting at low level (as you should) then wizards are fragile glass cannons that the fighters have to carefully escort and protect up throu level 8 or 9. That means that whenever the wizard is able to pull off a sweet magic blast, its something the whole party helped make happen. And once Wizards start to pull ahead, at 9+, its again something the whole party invested in, so martials, in mny experience, didn't resent it much because they had a hand in making it happen. Few of the games I played in over the 16 years of playing 2e made it far past 10-11 level anyway.
Even though it's not dnd, 13th age I feel captures 3rd and 4th Ed and really takes what made both awesome and puts them together. I highly recommend it.
my grandpa raised my family on 2E, and i'm going to take over DM'ing with it now that I'm living with my cousins atm. It's pretty intimidating, but i love it honestly. i really liked 3.5 as well playing that with friends in the early 2000's. great video!
I know that this is an old comment, but I just wanted to let you know that it's awesome that D&D is a family affair for you. Grandpa Jaco rules! I hope that I can make it one for my future family as well! 3.5 is my favorite edition.
This is possibly the best breakdown of the various D&D editions/rulesets that I have seen. No bias, no bull, and brief no-nonsense callouts to OSR titles that simulate/recreate the various styles of play. Kudos on a job well done, sir.
The history of original D&D is complex and contested territory, but it’s drastically oversimplifying things to say that it was based on Chainmail. Dave Arneson jettisoned that system’s combat tables quickly and made his own rules, which were never fully codified in any accessible form. Modern D&D history credits several prior games including an open ended game called Braunstein. It’s worth discussing that the older editions gave more experience for gold pieces of treasure found than for fighting monsters. This gave the game a heavy emphasis on exploration rather than combat - a noticeable difference. I’ve run OD&D, Swords & Wizardry, B/X, Labyrinth Lord, Rules Cyclopedia, 1e, 2e, 3e, and 5e, and the differences with the older editions are noteworthy.
@@carso1500 it's not only gold you get experience for but also for using class abilities and general things a player comes up with that help the party . Table 33: Common Individual Awards Player has a clever idea 50-100 XP Player has an idea that saves the party 100-500 XP Player role-plays his character well *100-200 XP Player encourages others to participate100-200 XP Defeating a creature in a single combatXP value/creature XP Table 34: Individual Class Awards Warrior Award Per Hit Die of creature defeated10 XP/level Priest Award Per successful use of a granted power 100 XP Spells cast to further ethos100 XP/spell level* Making potion or scroll XP value Making permanent magical itemXP value Wizard Award Spells cast to overcome foes or problems 50 XP/spell level Spells successfully researched 500 XP/spell level Making potion or scroll XP value Making permanent magical item XP value Rogue Award Per successful use of a special ability 200 XP Per gold piece value of treasure obtained 2 XP 2 XP Per Hit Die of creatures defeated (bard only)5 XP * The priest character gains experience for those spells which, when cast, support the beliefs and attitudes of his mythos. Thus, a priest of a woodland deity would not gain experience for using an entangle spell to trap a group of orcs who were attacking his party, since this has little to do with the woodlands. If the priest were to use the same spell to trap the same orcs just as they were attempting to set fire to the forest, the character would gain the bonus.
2nd was great, tons of options and I got most the books pretty cheap due to the TSR buy out by WoC. My local stores sold all those books half price despite imo being better than most the wizards of the coast versions that were filled with Typo's and ugly artwork. My only complaint about 2nd edition was a few to many instant death mechanics combined with how slow XP gain can be at higher levels. When a fight with things like a Great Worm Dragon split amongst your party barely makes 2k xp, and you need 50k+ for a level it's kind of sad. Especially given if you die your pretty screwed as resurrection or raise dead not super easy to come by in the standard setting. This lead to a lot of "fresh starts" for me and my friends. We made characters, got to about level 5 or 6 and either gave up or died. Having to start over again at level 1. I only had one character who ever made it to a high level, a priest that I think made it to level 11. That was a character I played pretty regularly in a campaign for about 5 years irl....It would take months of 8-10 hour sessions every week to gain a level.
@@SylviusTheMad You can still homebrew things up, but the majority of the people who do come up with hillariously overpowered stuff. Really hard to get a balanced example that isn't a carbon copy of something else. I wonder if 6th edition will be compatible with 5e.
Interesting. I am pretty new to DND. So I am into 5E, because that is what is available. I do appreciate it being light on rules. It is already very difficult to learn. Having a more difficult version sounds like a nightmare. I do like the old school trend of having basic and advanced versions. I hope this comes back. Just have the basic version explained in the player handbook and maybe the DM guide. Then add extra rules for an advanced game in supplimentary books. They can be like the Xanathar abd Tasha books. I am interested in 4E. I got the books long ago, but didn't play. One thing I do like about 4E is the variety of classes. I like how a class can be determined by a combo of magic source and the role. I don't remember the exact wording. Magic source provides a sense of flavor. There can be martial, arcane, holy, nature and psychic. Role determines how a class would play in battle. There can be tank, cannon, support and scout. The wording is something like that. I don't remeber the specifics. One thing I don't like about 5E is that it seems to shaft martial classes. They don't get spells, ehich sucks. The video did talk about how 4E gives all classes spells. That is nice. That may be something to incorporate. Maybe I ought to check 4E. I wonder what the backlash was about.
Advanced v1 was my era back in 1982. The classic modules like White Plume Mountain, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Tomb of Horrors and the mighty Temple of Elemental Evil were great fun to play as a 13 year old. Stranger Things for real!
Pathfinder fixes a lot of the issues with 3.5 mentioned in the video. It has much better class balance, with martial classes being much better, and far more customization options with each class being far more versatile as nearly every class lets you choose class abilities at certain levels (often even levels) so that two characters of a class can play completely differently by second level. It also has archetypes, which let you replace base class abilities with alternate class abilities for more specific classes. Pathfinder has most of the benefits of 3.5 while fixing the issues and being more customizable than AD&D 2e.
I got into d&d with 5e. found pathfinder while looking for a 5e group, played some 3.5e as well, i have now played dozens of pf (and a fair few 3.5e) games, dmd lots of pathfinder (and 1 3.5e game that got benched after a member went to jail. only 3 players ;-; all that writing....). I have played 3 5e games. its not bad at all, but its not what everyone pretends it is. the only thing keeping it from having as many redundant options and bad sub classes as older editions is that there are barely 10 options per class to begin with and most of them still suck. its far too streamlined for creative customization and they try so hard to balance classes many of them end up far under tuned (like arcane archer, which i want to like but eldritch knight, or hell a fucking valor bard, do it better....)
@@ShadowAraun Yeah... I have to agree. I started out with Pathfinder (am I the only one who did that based on the material being free online?) and always thought it was like a slightly inferior product because I didn't know enough about the other editions. Then, a few years later, I got the chance to try 5e and... god, where do you even start? I guess it's nice WotC tried making a more accessible system, like a more modern reinterpretation of Basic Dungeons & Dragons, but I can't take it seriously. For all its faults, I always got the impression 4e at least tried to be ambitious; 5e feels like it's the opposite of ambitious.
While that was Paizo's goal, they didn't fix anything. PF is just new house rules for 3e. Some are better, some are worse. I run 3e with my own house rules...
I'm surprised for the 3.5 section you didn't show Temple of Elemental Evil aka the best representation of the 3.5 rules in video games. Not a criticism just something I thought would be in the video.
I have DM'd the Original Game, 1E, 2E, 3/3.5, PF 1E, and 5E. I have played Original, Basic, 1E, 2E, and 3E. I never DM'd 4E, it looked like a decent game but it wasn't what I wanted to run. And, I haven't been a player since early 3E. 3.5E if you count the Neverwinter Nights 2 video game. All of which leads me to the conclusions than: 1. I'm old :D 2. I've had a lot of fun playing D&D.
Just to clarify, the immortal set did get another version when BECMI was reprinted into the Rules Cyclopedia (BECM) with the accompanying box set: Wrath of the Immortals (I). The setting for original D&D (The Known World) would later become incorporated into 2nd edition under the Mystara campaign setting. It should also be noted that there were conversion rules so that one could take the characters from D&D (BECMI and later versions) into AD&D 2nd edition and vice versa before the D&D line was absorbed fully into 2nd edition altogether in 1994. DM It All is quite accurate in how much material was published during 2nd edition giving so many options and sources for rules across hundreds of books for both DMs and players. This edition also provided some of the most developed campaign setting material that was never quite equaled after this edition. "A lot of players felt these changes moved D&D away from the grounded Gygaxian design of the past and turned D&D into an over the top video game." Whereas 3rd edition just turned D&D into a video game version of D&D. WotC also had to retcon the existing canon and lore of the original settings to reflect the drastic change in rules from 2nd edition to 3rd edition that effectively ruined the verisimilitude of those settings.
About the retconning, I don't know how much of that they did, but it would have been preferable to what they usually did, yet another world-altering cataclysm. The whole "Time of Troubles" in Forgotten Realms was in order to excuse all the changes from 1st to 2nd edition AD&D (even though by modern standards, there weren't that many), and likewise the "Spellplague" to 4th edition, and "The sundering" to 5th edition. D&D Mystara got "Wrath of the Immortals", another cataclysm to justify introducing (apparently somewhat altered?) immortal rules again after leaving them out of Rules Cyclopedia.
@@Mnnvint All of a sudden there are dwarven wizards when there never have been before in the Realms? Suddenly, the elves decide to renege on the decision to retreat to Evermeet that took centuries to decide? How the cosmology has drastically changed for the worse in D&D until it is at an all time low in the 5th edition model? No, the retconning was worse as there was no excuse for the changes WotC decided to do. At least with a world shattering event, some of it can be explained as to why there was a shift. But not with 3rd edition. Suddenly things are different with the weakest excuse as to why. Suddenly, priest can free cast healing magic for no reason. Inexplicably, anyone can be anything. Magic items changed how they work while many ceased to exist. One thing you have to remember about the "cataclysm event" with TSR is that not every setting actually experienced one and not at the same time. The one on Forgotten Realms was not actually experienced on Greyhawk or Lankhmar as neither setting had one (Greyhawk Wars was not an actual rule change, just an event), while the cataclysm in Dragonlance and The known World occured at different times relative to Forgotten Realms. Even when The Known World shifted to 2nd edition as Mystara, there was no cataclysm at that point, just a rule shift that had already been prepared years in advance with the conversion rules. No, WotC has sucked at the transitions and explaining the rule changes they have embarked on while at the same time having to retcon every TSR setting beyond belief and losing so much lore and richness from the earlier editions.
@@Welverin Well it does depend on how you play the game. If you play a shallow game not dependant on a setting or established history, then it matters as to why something has drastically change, like the elimination of the assassin class in Forgotten Realms. This was explained as the god murder drawing in the essence of all assassins in a bid to increase his power, something that god could do as assassins were his portfolio. This also allows one to use the previously established lore without having to retcon anything as WotC has continually have had to do. Personally, I prefer an established setting with history and lore over a limited homebrew or generic setting, but to each their own.
@@craigtucker1290 The depth of the campaign has nothing to do with it, it's the willingness of the people involved to accept the fact things are different that matters. p.s. Your assassin example is awful, because an assassin is just a professional killer. An in world assassin could be represented by any class, and the fact the assassin class was removed doesn't mean assassin's needed to cease to exist in the world. A better example would be dwarven mages existing when they didn't before.
While I DM mostly 5th edition these days, I had WAY too much fun with 4th edition. I grew very accustomed to its balance and could do very balanced encounters for my players, something I cannot properly do after years of DMing 5e. Though 5e is much simpler and I still have great experience with it.
There are some easy fixes for 5e to balance encounters. First, if you have many players in the party, consider using the theoretical max HP for monsters. E.g. if a monster has 8d6+12 hitpoints just give them 60 hp. If the players are using loud spells in combat, consider calling in reinforcement units. E.g. if the party finds a trio of necromancers and their skeletons and attacks, maybe a hoard of zombies and several more necromancers arrive via a side passage. Consider adding flying creatures to an encounter, even ones with ranged attacks. While party members might hate spells that incapacitate them, leaving them with nothing to do but roll a Saving Throw at the end of their turn, there are alternatives that can shield enemies or provide obstacles. E.g. even a simple Fog Cloud can potentially shut down ranged party members, since most players don't pack spells that generate gusts of wind.
If you're looking for something with a similar feel to 4e, I'd recommend checking out 13th Age. It has a lot of mechanics clearly inspired by/pulled from 4e (one of the main designers was on the design team for 4e, so it's not surprising), but also makes some quality-of-life changes, like a more simplified distance/movement rules so you don't need a grid to play.
16:03 Yeah. You can thank Skip Williams for that. During 3.5e, he kept favoring casters- Wizards in particular- while snubbing melee. 3.5e rolled out a few changes to melee that made Fighters a 2-level dip, more or less. Well, Williams, but also Monte Cooke, who was responsible for "Ivory Tower Game Design," loading the game with "trap options" that rewarded veteran players and punished newcomers, making the game too much like a CCG. Both of these lead to high levels in 3.5e turning into "rocket tag" with either obscene amounts of damage, or absurd, "save or die" effects aplenty. 3.5e was by no means a perfect edition, though it, and Pathfinder, come the closest in my mind to perfection for the game. (Note: If for some reason you think that's 5e? Great! I don't think 5e is a bad edition by any stretch- that's 2e, honestly- It's just not my cup of tea. God. Now I sound like one of those people who thinks 1e is the best edition, don't I...?)
As someone who grew up with 3.5, I could never get into Pathfinder, it had the same balance issues as 3.5, but didn't have psionic or ToB classes, which were my favourite classes from 3.5
@@marsupialmole3926 there's a psionics splat for PF, the Aegis class is a completely broken version of the soul knife. Long story short, abusing size category rules to turn a longbow into a handheld ballista at level 3.
@@goolabbolshevish1t651 No it didin't, it added "occult" classes that had "psychic" abilities that were, flavor wise, very similar to psionics, but were mechanically far closer to more traditional spellcasters. The closest occult class to psionics was the kineticist, and that was still wildly separate from the mechanics of psionic casting from 3.5. I don't like psionics because they're psychic, I like them because the power point system was interesting and fun to mess with
The nice thing with less detailed rulesets, is that if players start playing "rocket tag" and abusing the hell out of the rules, it's so much easier to just change the rules, or steer around it in other ways (if there's a particularly troublesome wizard spell in 2nd edition or earlier for instance? Just never let the character find that spell, they can't use them until they have them in their spellbook! And 2nd edition priests, used to spheres, probably won't be too upset if you remove.) Changing anything important in 3rd or later seems pretty daunting by comparison.
@@sethseth9059 Thanks brother, I think so too. 3.5 definitely has power creep issues, but other than that to me it's perfect. So many ways to build a completely unique character that feels very rewarding on the way to level 20 and beyond. And the open d20 license ensures that you never run out of new content to use.
I know Advanced D&D 1 edition and it was the best one ,spells and combat where more deadly ,there where 2 player handbooks and 3 monster manuals a lot more rules but easy to learn ,I have seen 5th edition and the Sorceror is a plus and there also some more positive changes ,but still the rules have become to soft less risk in a fight or adventure .And searching for spells and how everthing works cost so much more time and that with only 1 book .
yeah 5e started as a very easy on the player game and completly devolved into a powerfantasy of inimaginable proportions. I hope next edition or 5.5 might actually scale some power out of the system. Players hitting lvl 3 reaching like 70% of the power of a lvl 20 character makes it such a meme. at that point one can opt to play some cooperative story telling game rather then dnd.
I’ve always heard negatives about 4E, but after watching this I’m actually very interested in it. I love the emphasis on high fantasy here with how each class possess unique powers and such. Makes everyone feel special without the need of being a wizard.
started in 74 around 77 my dm came up with his own tables where you could hit but armor absorbed so much damage, also dice rolls for race. everyone was in college or military by 81. still miss those days
Original D&D was the first D&D that I actually GM'd, although this came after playing 3e, 3.5e, 4e, 2e, and RC. It's pretty much the only official version of D&D that I'd be likely to actually run again, except maybe B/X (and then I'd probably end up running OSE or BFRPG). That said, my favourite D&D-alike is Whitehack, which is derived from Swords & Wizardry White Box, which is itself derived from OD&D. Whitehack includes player defined traits and freeform magic that costs HP to cast. Our group has run multiple campaigns in it, and has even tweaked it to run Transformers and Shadowrun.
4e will always have a special place in my heart cause it was my first and favorite system, but I tend to play 5e more since it’s easier to find a group for it
I think 4e gets a lot of unjustified hate because it was so radically different from what came before. A lot of people complain about how overpowered casters are compared to marshal classes in other editions and 4e fixed that. On top of that it had a really cinematic combat system that was super fun to play and DM.
@@cespinar could you elaborate? I'm trying to get a better feeling for the strengths and flaws of the various editions and it always fascinates me when I see an opinion that seems to diverge from what appears to be the common consensus.
First Edition AD&D with Call of Cthulhu mixed in is the most fun imho. The dungeon master is key to making everything work reasonably. A good, experienced dungeon master is key to combining these two scenarios but done well it is so much fun. Cthulhu is a good spice for first edition AD&D.
I just want you to know that your previous video was the first one I watched on this channel. Since then I have watched every video you’ve made-something I haven’t done for any other D&D channel. Today, I was so excited to see a new video that I realized I need to subscribe. I can hardly stand the wait between uploads, but very much appreciate the hard work and dedication you put into them. These are some of the most well-researched and informative videos I’ve watched and look forward to more in the future. Thank you so much!
3.5 with a dash of 5e is my cup of tea. 3.5 is so modular it’s ridiculous it wasn’t more popular and 5e is perfect for getting people who have no concept of playing ttrpg’s a crash course before you play 3.5
I've played every edition since AD&D (plus PF/PF2e) and 4th edition is my favourite. Combat was great, but it did require minis. Rules for out of combat were also really good. I felt I had more ability to customize my character, and yet you didn't tend to have a problem with one player overshadowing the others (because classes were balanced) The 2 biggest problems for 4e were: 1) The lack of a digital tabletop (especially as we had been promised it) 2) People forgetting that they were allowed to roleplay: "It says here that the power is called X and it looks like Y when I use it" Call it what you want, and describe it how you imagine it people! So people didn't bother to roleplay, and then they complained that it didn't let them roleplay!
Nice to see someone who doesn't just say "Why should you play 4e? You shouldn't, next!" For real it solved a couple issues that had bugged me since I started playing in '86
I say this just because it made me happier than it should have!!! This video popped into my feed. I haven't thought about D&D in YEARS. I just collected a bunch of childhood boxes. Reminds me I had some books. Just went and uncovered First Edition Dieties and Demigods 1st Players Hand book, Rules Cyclopedia, Legends and Lore and a bunch of old Modules including the first Spell Jammer and the first module we used to call "the red box" The fucking memories lolol I wish there was a teenager out there that could appreciate those time capsules...
This video was easily the most even handed coverage of the various D&D rules sets I have ever seen. Concurrently it also contained the most adept evasion of the internal and external politics surrounding the demise of TSR I have ever seen in a discussion of the game's history.
AD&D 2nd edition was my introduction into table top RPG's and as such will always have a special place in my heart...the BG and ID video games based on that system are some of the best. Rangers created with the 2nd edition Rangers Handbook are, by far, the funnest class to play in any edition, at least for me. Took me a while to warm up to 3rd edition but by the time Pathfinder had refined the system into what it is today, it became my favorite. Never cared for 4th edition at all and because of that, I've never given 5th edition a try...maybe I should but IMO it would just be impossible to top the current pathfinder system. I'll also add that a good alternative to 3rd edition is the Wheel of Time RPG. Uses the D20 system but has some pretty unique classes and a different magic system. If you like 3e, give it a try.
I grew up with 2nd Edition, and didn't warm up to 3rd until near the end of 3.5. I hated 4th, but these days I'd be willing to play it if bribed with beer. I love 5th edition, because it reminds me of a lot of the best parts of 2nd and 3rd, without falling prey to the insane splatbook creep of 3.5 or the way none of 2nd's mechanics interacted with each other very well. I especially enjoy the way 5e's subclasses find a good balance between the kits of 2e and the prestige classes of 3.5e. And everything is so internally consistent, it's really easy to homebrew stuff without it being overpowered Mary Sue nonsense. Just, you know, as always, avoid every single thing that comes from dandwiki like it's got smallpox. I think the quality of 5e's design is big part of why D&D has suddenly become popular with the kinds of people who wouldn't have been caught dead playing in the '80s or '90s. It's easy to pick up, has internally consistent logic, and it allows opportunities for some players to choose to take on more complexity if they want it, without leaving a power discrepancy between them and the players that like to keep their character sheet light and simple. I'm currently playing a character that's designed to have enough super-noodley book keeping to keep me from falling asleep while the forever-Rogue player takes 20 minutes to decide "I'm going to stab them for a sneak attack."
@@nicholasnewell6360, nothing insane about the splat books. more books, more options. don't want them, don't use them. but many had so much good stuff.
Nice summary. I use to play Basic to Masters, bought Immortals, but never played it as about that time my party was moving away and "growing up" and didn't have time to play. I never tried to find a new group, but the fun we had are still some of my best teenage memories. I have new friends who play 5th, but now it's me that doesn't have the time. Such it life, but I still like to hear their adventures.
We refer to edition 3.5 but I also feel we could talk of an edition 2.5 (with The Player's Option supplements) and even 1.5 (with Unearthed Arcana, the Dungeoneer and Wilderness survival guides).
Skills & Powers offered so many options to fine-tune 2e to each table's preferences. Though it took a lot of experience with 2e to impliment those options well. It wouldn't be easy to start up a new group on 2.5 without a campaign or two getting familiar with 2e basic.
Essentially each revision of AD&D presents something different: 2nd edition its world and setting books. They really realised how popular their campaign worlds were, and brought out more setting specific books than ever before, really defining how weird the cosmos of D&D could get. 3.x then is all about character options, customisation and flexibility. It builds on the plentyful splat books of 2e in a more coherant way, and creates the most comprehensive fantasy RPG of all time. 4e then has the best tactical elements. This was important in 3rd, but 4th takes it to an extreme, creating the most balanced and elegant combat system D&D has ever had. It actually doesn't "stop" you from doing roleplaying as much as some claim, it just wasn't the focus of the way their modules were laid out, and since not everyone reads the DMG it didn't really come across that you could still do all of that. 5e's greatest strength is its accessibility. It is quick to pick up and play, the single best jumping on point for new players, and can capture the feel of most of the previous games. It doesn't have the depth of any of them, whether that be in customising itself for variant worlds and stories, providing endless character options, or providing the tactical depth of 4e. However each prior edition took those to extremes, so 5e has an absolutely appropriate level of depth.
I'm a 4e fan. It's my favorite although I am now discovering AD&D 2e after learning how THAC0 works. I think a lot of the complaints about 4e come from people who have never played the game. It's sin, if it has one, is that it's very Transparent about it being a game and through its Presentation is put the game of D&D in your face where other editions are presented in a more story focused look and less a game look.
Basic, Expert & Companion sets were where I first truly cut my teeth on D&D, but fell in love with AD&D (1E) not long after. That said, I feel that 2nd Edition is where it truly hit its stride, largely due to the addition of Proficiencies & Specializations....& Kits. From all I have seen, 5E just feels like a more expansive & more modern take on 2nd edition....which I love 🙂
I was always partial to 2nd edition. Lots of source books, lots of options and lots of freedom. Tons of rules you could use, or not use up to the DM's option. It also pushed team work more than some other versions as healing surges and the like did not exist. No one player could really do every thing. That said it had negative side effects, lots of instant death mechanics and a fairly slow level up system once you hit about 5th level. The XP class rewards and monster XP was nearly worthless. A lich being about 10k xp split to a party was nothing when you need 20-30k xp to level up. A fight that could kill you at almost any moment due to a bad roll... That said I grew up with that edition mostly. Got tons of the books cheap due to the Wizards of the Coast buy out of TSR. All the TSR books were sold half price brand new in my book stores just as I was getting into the game.
If you enjoyed 2e, come join the campaign at app.roll20.net/join/4827316/B-5uWA. The game is based on the Arduin Grimoires but you'll find most of it familiar. We play online almost every Fri evening at at 7 EST
It's worth mentioning the "neo-clones" of D&D too: 13th Age for 4e, and Shadow of the Demon Lord for 5e. These are more like re-imaginings than clones, though.
Gonna go look up "Shadow of the Demon Lord" now, I kinda hated 5e but can't find anyone to play games with since no one will try anything else these days. Let's see if this is a comfy middle.
@@Jpteryx Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2e, Iron Kingdoms, Mutants & Masterminds 3e, Warhammer 40k Roleplay, and recently picked up Starfinder. I've always enjoyed in depth character customization and a massive slew of options over "balance" - for me RPGs are exercises in story-telling mixed with games of skill - so crunchy tactical combat rules are quite nice. And yes, I realize I've said "I love tactical rules and don't care about balance", I typically avoid munchkins on principle so rarely do I have players who try and break their games. I just want to make sure there's a consistent ruling for whatever it is you're imagining so I don't slip up and break world-physics by changing the response because everything is off the cuff.
@@Ultrox007 If you like different settings and want them to seamlessly fit together, I suggest you try Torg Eternity. Not to be confused with the 90's Torg system. It's the same setting, but updated for this century and significantly streamlined.
As Holmes' basic was kinda skipped over I'd throw a shout-out to it and it's retroclone Blueholme, as it has an unique identity, tone and approach to role-playing from what came before and after. Ruleswise it's something of a middleground between OD&D, Basic and Advanced, with some quirks of it's own. It's not as simplified and kid-oriented as later Basic sets, but not as loaded with detail and minute complexity as AD&D. It retains the DYI and "guidlines, not rules" approach of OD&D (compared to the, as writen, more limited rules of later Basic and the tournament-oriented strictness of 1E), but is a more complete and unified, less "assembly needed" product out of the gate. The Journeymanne edition of Blueholme completes what Holmes intended you to look to OD&D for, allowing play up to level 20, and was made with the help and blessing of Holmes' son Chris whom Holmes initially learned to DM for.
"Check out second edition if you want to learn second edition rules" Wow. Thanks for the massive help there. Really helped me understand the differences.
Are you familiar with THAC0? 2e isn’t too far different from the previous editions, so if you know one of them; you have the gist of all pre 3e editions. Pre 3e had varied saves (more then 3), THAC0, and rules were you needed to roll high for somethings and low for others. 3e and forward is you want as high as possible. The vid would take too long, much like this response, to cover everything.
2nd edition is the golden age of D&D where it was scalable in complexity. It also fixed some of the worst game design issues from 1st edition and cleaned up much of sloppy mechanics, but it also allowed one to add many optional rules to scale up the complexity of the game giving many options to both players and DMs alike. There has never been an edition with as much development, though 3/3.5 comes the closest. In fact, a fair amount of 2nd edition found its way into 3rd edition. THAC0 is actually quite easy, though it is never explained well. The formula to figure out what you need is your modified THAC0 - the AC of the opponent = the number on the d20. Or if you want to know what AC you hit the formula was your modified THAC0 - the die roll on the d20 = the AC. The main thing to keep in mind as the main difference between the editions was that while TSR was in control, there were consequences for choices and the choices one made did limit one's options. WotC instead decided to give in to every OP whim any player ever had and throw balance out the window. The game ended up playing more like a video game than how D&D was intended to be played.
I started in the AD&D era.. around 86-87. I always enjoyed the grittier style games. But.. they made me not generally get attached to my characters. To the point of doing off the wall stuff. I enjoyed 3.5 & pathfinder. I never particularly got into fourth edition. I mainly now play 5th edition and so far have yet to get into pathfinder 2.0
I'd be happy to play any of them that aren't 5e. I am glad you took a pretty positive approach to each edition, and highlighted their strengths, and what they're best used for, instead of endlessly banging on about problems people are very aware of.
Man I totally agree. Yet perhaps not 1e. But yeah I thought I was the only one given how some crowd (not in this channel) can be so mindlessly uncritical about 5e and thinks that all prior edition are shit
Easy: Pathfinder first edition. Summoner Class is 100% a class every table top gamer has wanted to play and every video gamer will be able to step right into the mindset for.
Despite being just 17 years old, I started playing D&D with heavily modified BECMI/Advanced rules. We were a bunch of kids, ages 10-12, playing with an older DM (~50) in our local leisure club in the world he had been building with other players since he was 18. I still play the same character there every wednesday, my 13th level Dwarven Fighter.
I've played them all. I started with adbmvanced, then tryed basic. My preferences have been 2nd, and now I find 5th is nice, but a bit quirky. Never cared for third or fourth.
I have been playing D&D since 1977 the white box edition. The best Addition is the 1980 AD&D 1st addition. a game that I still play today! What I have been doing lately is using RIFTS with AD&D to the delight of my comrades. As DM I have taken my players into WW1, WW2, the Modern world, the medieval world is examples of fun and something different. I also make up new monsters that really give them something to think about The whole point is having fun and friendship.
2nd Edition is best..mixed with 3rd Edition. I love the roleplay atmopshere in 2nd edition, skills like cooking, dancing, ancient languages. 3rd edition is too much powerplay but ability score system is good. The best way is to mix both editions in my opinion.
Started with 2e (and have For Gold and Glory). We had a great time playing that edition and I still have a couple of my old characters almost 3 decades later. But my family and I really enjoy 5e. But I am intrigued by Pathfinder 2. Thank you for putting together this brief guide.
Can't wait for the next video. I devoured your content as if there was no tomorrow. You're my favorite youtube channel atm, and learning about the story of my favorite RPG system is awesome! I'm dming a 3.5 game atm, but i hope to run ADND2e soon. Keep up the good work!
@@30noir Love the mercies. I picked suboptimal ones for my first Paladin for roleplay purposes, he became a Paladin to help others, so I picked disease and had an extra mercy feat for poison.
I started playing in 1978 with 1st ed, loved it, but dropped out of RPGs for many years due to life, job, kids, etc. Just starting to jump back in, and am reviewing all of the intervening editions to see what may be the best fit. So I did enjoy this overview, and it's avoidance of taking a stand in the "Edition Wars". I do think that 4th would fit my playing style best, coming from a board wargaming and miniatures background. The problem is that there are not a lot of DMs still running that edition. I think one of the biggest things running against 4th edition was the poor promotion, and sub standard explanation of many key new concepts in the edition, as well as minimal playtesting of the powers and how they interact. While they started to correct some of this with the Essentials line, it was too little, too late. Speaking of powers, the one thing that I think was misleading in the video was the ongoing misunderstanding regarding this concept in 4th. While some of the powers are magical, the ones that apply to the martial classes are better understood as heroic fighting abilities, beyond the "I swing my sword, and hit something". It's in explaining these powers (and what they actually represent in real world terms) to new 4th edition players is where WOC fell down badly.
I will always prefer AD&D 2E. Yeah, the math was sideways and OP murderhobos ran rampant, but the possibilities were endless and there were optional rules for everything.
I have been using 2nd edition for more than 3 decades and have yet to see a murderhobo in any game. The math is slightly more complicated, especially when calculating the actual size of a fireball (based on volume), but the options and setting material has never been matched. The only real downside was that everything was so scattered amongst the various books making it a scavenger hunt to find things sometimes.
@@craigtucker1290 lol the group I ran with was a bit Monty Hall. Tons of magical items, to the point that when I quit the group; I removed more than half the items for the sake of them being superfluous. My DM was a good one for the murderhobo dungeons. Just room after room of random monsters, thrown into a dungeon, with no rhyme or reason. 100 troglodytes in one room. 30 bugbears in another. 6 characters in the party. Lol.
@@sandeman1776 My first DM was like that. Gave out a girdle or storm giant, a +6 bow made for that strength, and a solar's quiver all at 6th level. He didn't understand why the game wasn't fun anymore... Also had an "encounter against 10 dragons (all of them very old or older) that I somehow won when I shouldn't have. It just breaks that verisimilitude that I am looking for and ruins the game for me. Even to this day I tend to think of the implausibility of such scenarios as you just mentioned with monster living next to each other or traps placed where monsters roam. How are they fed? Why are they there? How do they not set the traps off? I need more than just a DM hand waving the issue or that it is "magic" these days. It comes down more to DM competency as the main issue as anyone can be a DM, but not everyone should be.
@@craigtucker1290 amen to that. Ever play the campaign adventure "Night Below?" My favorite adventure to run. It introduced my favorite subrace of elves. The Rockseer.
@@sandeman1776 We played part of it back in the day, still have it though I haven't played it in a long time. I do remember the Tanar'ri in the one cave. We didn't use the rockseer elves though since our campaign is mainly based in Forgotten Realms and they are not included in that setting despite having seven elven races not counting half-elves. Though it is possible for the odd one to make an appearance given all the gates that exist in the Realms. Also crossed over into Planescape as well from time to time. We still use that setting to this day, especially considering that recommendations for Forgotten Realms includes most of the options we really like in the game.
My first introduction to D&D was through the Basic Box set sent to us by my older sister in college. I was around 10 at the time and quite a fan of board games. Going through the rules, I found them very complex (compared to a board game), but was fascinated by all the different spells. Then I found out how limited the Wizards were. We never did play that game. Years later, a friend introduces me to the GURPS system and runs a modern day campaign. I enjoy this enough to purchase the main book (an interesting system that needs some work). Another friend invites me over to an AD&D game that they're running as a new GM. I end up not enjoying that; though I put the blame on the fantasy setting rather than the newbie GM (I'm still good friends with them). Shadowrun is a mixture of fantasy and cyberpunk and I fell in love with the world (not so much the system). I ended up getting a lot of the adventure and splat books. Then they came out with a fantasy "prequel" (5,000 or so years in the past) called, "Earthdawn" which I was hesitant about due to the setting. However, I read a free trial adventure and was fascinated by it (basically post-apocalypse/horror with the apocalypse being evil spirits from the astral plane). I still play various games with the group I hooked up with for Earthdawn. I don't remember exactly how I got started with 3.0, but I know I was loaned a PHB and was really impressed with the rules and how they worked. Overall, I enjoyed 3.0 and even more enjoyed 3.5 when it came out. I spent a LOT of time in this system and own a LOT of their books. I was a bit hesitant (again) for 4.0, but that's what my group was playing, so that's what I got. I liked some aspects of it, but it really seemed to be more of a CCG (Collectable Card Game) than an RPG. Indeed, it felt to me that all the role-playing aspects were drained out of it. That being said, I did have some fun games in that system (plus the "Fell's Five" comic series is in that world and it is a LOT of fun). I actually rather like 5e. Though I balked a bit at the cost of the books (but then, EVERYTHING is expensive now days), it seems they've made a very conscious effort to bring back the RPG element of it (though, sadly, some of those elements tend to get ignored by our group). It also simplifies a lot of rules (I also like some of the changes). Overall, I think 5e is the best of the systems, though I have no problem playing in a 3.5e game with one of my groups (I'm very used to the rules).
Error: The 1977 Basic Dungrons & Dragons rules set written by neurosurgeon John E Holmes was not meant as a lead in to the original game, but was meant to be a starting point leading towards AD&D,. Because AD&D was not fully compiled at that time, there were odd interfaces, but although the taces had "most vommon" defaults the option of playing other classes was mentioned, as was the OD&D freeflowing style, in that the option of playing a centaur or samurai, or whatever else a player could talk a DM 8nto allowing. It also mentions sub classes that didn't make it into AD&D, such as the witch.
My group and I loved the transition to 4E, it had some of the best fluff material ever written.I wasn't happy with WOTCs online support of the game and its broken promises. Another downside is they kept changing the rules of the game anytime more than one person complained about something and had to learn the hard way not to listen to the mob.
I've never played before, been intimidated by it due to horrible luck with die rolls. A friend and I have been moving away from competitive games like magic the gathering... so I picked up a 5th edition players handbook and some beginner set that the guy at the game store suggested. Im glad that in order to play we only need some books and paper rather than paying thousands for cardboard. Lol We haven't played yet, but I've been watching a lot of videos and reading the book. Thank you for the informative video on the different editions!
I mostly play 3.x while I mix 3.0 with 3.5/Pathfinder but also use 2nd a lot. With the 4th Wizards wrecked up D&D for me like they did f.a. in the Forgotten Realms with the Spellplague. Now they are fixing what they messed by bringing the 5th. In the FR they jump massive to the 15th C. and correct the events that many player criticized. The 5th is ok, but for me as a veteran player with over 20 years of experience it is to simple and way to casual. Its "I play D&D!" sounds like "I can order a McMenu!". It is beginner friendlier as all others but I miss the complexety that you should know you class and be your charakter rather than do so. For me a massive point of critic is the heavily monetization and commercialization that Wizards started with the 4th. Melk the cow till she is dead, than sell the cadaver for a high price, buy two new cows and restart repeat until you be tooked over by Disney or Amazon.
While this is a great and impartial overview I'd say you skipped over 2nd edition's single biggest draw - highly evocative settings. This was the era of 'Al-Qadim', 'Birthright', 'Planescape' and 'Spelljammer' and the expansion of 'Ravenloft' into a sandbox setting in its own right. You also had the 'green cover' historical settings - 'The Glory of Rome', 'Vikings Campaign Sourcebook' and so on. True many of this could probably be retrofitted to later (or earlier) editions but as someone who cut his teeth on 2e I think they were an enormous amount of the charm of that era.
I've headed back to 2nd Ed recently. Getting all the books for Dark Sun's and just find the right group unafraid of how harsh that setting is.
@@angrytheclown801 Wow I can't believe I forgot 'Dark Sun'. I guess that sort of proves the point though - 2nd edition was SO rich with great campaign settings you can actually forget even iconic ones came in with this era.
I mean, any campaign setting can be used in any edition.
@@Zelkiiro But they wouldn't exist if 2nd edition hadn't arrived. So if you don't want to have to do a lot of serial number filing, it's there in 2nd. Useful to know.
@@angrytheclown801 If second edition D&D wasn't around, the editions after it wouldn't have existed, either. Furthermore, those settings could have been developed for rolemaster instead. If there is something specific about second edition that make it work better than other systems in those settings, that would be a point for 2e.
I started with AD&D 1st edition and never progressed beyond it. I even own a old Deities and Demigods book from before they changed it to Legends and Lore. We always took the rules as guidelines and adjusted things for more entertaining game play. As far as I'm concerned you really don't need more than those books and your imagination.
I used to play those and used 2nd edition for the extra stuff like skills. 1st edition was painful if you had an anal retentive DM. When I first started playing 1st edition, Ours really enjoyed torturing us as he was the only DM around. The tournament modules were the worst! I'm looking at you Caverns of Tsojcanth!
Roger that. Of all the D&D versions I've DMed, it's First that made me house rule the most. Hell, I tossed out entire pages of the DMG as being restricting and cumbersome. That said, some of the attitudes embodied in 1E have stayed with me to the present. You can take the gamer out of the old school, but you can't take the old school out of the gamer.
Yeah...when I look back at all my AD&D books...they take up such little space on my bookshelf, compared to 2nd Ed (or 3rd...). I've often thought of running a hybrid 1st/2nd game as there are elements of 2nd I did like...just not some of the bulk of all the optional rules they churned out as the Blume brothers drove TSR into the ground...
Same here, exactly. I was often DM and played super loose with the rules. For us it was much more about collaborative storytelling and almost no war gaming, so the rules almost didn't matter beyond establishing a common setting for us to explore. I never bought modules, and instead dreamed up a basic outline, invented a scenario, and drew a few scenes before starting. Then mostly improvised during the game. I was the DM, so I made the rules and my friends just rolled with it. We incorporated lots of comedy. So more Discworld than Tolkien. Monster Manual was the most important book for us.
Does your DDG have Cthulhu and Elric? Too bad Chaosium yanked them from later printings.
When i passed my 2nd edition stuff away to a friend it was three piles each over 6 feet tall...yeah there was a lot of 2e
I think the OSR community deserves a mention here - they’re devoted to creating new content compatible with most older editions, be they entirely new games, modules, etc. Since it’s an indie community filled with self-publishing, there’s lots of beautiful weird stuff that would never get published by a bigger company.
Aequus “OSR” here means “Old-School Renaissance”, or “Old-School Revival”, or “Old-School Roleplaying”, depending on who you ask.
@@goji7273 Or "old School Rules". The community never settled on what thew R stands for. :D But yeah, so much wonderful stuff has been made, so many things that are sparking with mad creativity.
Aequus No worries; it’s a community I dig and I’m always happy to get the chance to talk about it. Honestly, the quantity and quality of free products is a good selling point for older editions by itself.
Agreed! A lot of it is compatible with itself, given the base inspiration systems. It helps that B/X D&D doesn't have as many moving parts to break, or has so many supplements that homebrewing stuff is redundant.
There was on the list it was the ad&d 2nd edition clone
I've played every edition (though only some of the retro clones), and I think I have finally settled on.....Call of Cthulhu
Hey, that's modern D&D, doesn't count. ;)
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2e.
Call of Cthulhu - the game where you roll up new characters, travel to strange and exotic places, learn Secrets Man Was Not Meant To Know, things haunt you or chase you, the monsters or tomes make you go insane, the monsters kill you, you're buried, and the worms eat you - if you're VERY lucky it all happens in JUST THAT ORDER.
I love Call of Cthulhu by chaosium especially 7th edition
Tiny Dungeons
When I was 12 my best friend to this day introduced me to AD&D. We use that with a little second edition thrown in. Haven’t changed that and we have a blast every time we play. Whatever edition you know, like, and play is your edition.
I really love this attitude! A lot of people get extremely vitriolic when people prefer certain editions
@@OzoneInteractiveMegan 100% percent. It's all a means to an end. Getting together , being creative and having fun is the goal! Any of these systems can do that. These min maxers that want to cry about being OP etc have spent too much time playing video games lol As A DM, if I felt like a character was OP in any way shape or form, is it not my responsibility to find a creative way to counter that within the role playing? Seems like it to me :)
5:45: You could also try Old-School Essentials, which basically *is* B/X D&D, but which cleans up the editing and makes it significantly easier to get into.
It's an excellent system. Highly recommended.
Is not better than Moldbay edition: for me is the clearest and easiest to understand. I tried those two and essentials is more convoluted.
Looking for that comment
Very surprised this didn't get mentioned over Labyrinth lord, its a 100% clone.
@@brian1784 OSE was either not released yet, or had JUST been released at the time of this video, so that explains why it wasn't mentioned.
I started my kids on Basic Fantasy, which is an OSR game much like the B/X edition with a few modern touches like ascending AC. Once they had the idea we went to 5E because I figured they'd like the modern experience and more powerful characters. A few months later they asked to go back to Basic Fantasy and we've been using it ever since. There is a lot to be said for fast and simple.
Basic Fantasy is awesome!
One thing I really like about older editions is the feeling that the world is not there to please you. It was easy to die, death mattered, just getting to where you want to be was a challenge and if you weren't careful, you would feel the consequences. That didn't make old editions better because some players really don't want those elements in their games, but it makes them better for some players.
Yeah I agree! all the editions up to 3.5 (as well as Pathfinder 1E) felt gritty, and made you feel like you were a person in a unforgiving world.
I agree with this mostly but I do think it objectively makes older editions better. I feel modern players have become to o coddled. My favorite edition is BX, it is what I always thought D&D was supposed to be.
4th ed is the same way. Action oriented monsters are deadly.
@@nielsdejong 3.5 and 3rd was just awful. It was a bloated rule mongering mess.
Yeah, I find myself missing the old-school deadly playstyle, when having a character survive to Name Level was a true achievement. But I also appreciate the modern paradigm that allows you to get really *invested* in a long-running character's growth and storyline
I grew up on Basic and AD&D. Currently playing 3.5 and 5e, but 3.5 is where my heart is at.
3.5 is 🤴
Right there with you. 3.5 is my jam
I started with 3.5. I mostly play 5e as that’s what most of my friends play, but I love the odd chance to dust off my 3.5 books.
I also started with Basic and AD&D. My current campaign is 3.5 (though I've tried 5e, it's not really my thing).
Gotta say, 3.5 is pretty solid. Especially when you allow homebrew tweaks of classes for balancing purposes (namely helping martials with variety in abilities).
Interesting factoid about AD&D vs. Basic: while AD&D was marketed as being for more experienced players, Basic was actually very popular among groups who coupled mastery of the rules with a desire to stretch them in new directions. The simplicity of B/X meant it was easy to tinker with and make your own. Which meant while the Stranger Things kids were more likely to graduate to AD&D as soon as they could, groups of older players who wanted more politics and domain management, or science-fantasy shenanigans, or to rework the game with extensive house-rules, were more likely to build on a B/X base.
My original group playing 1AD&D absolutely pulled a lot of stuff from the Companion and Masters supplements to incorporate into the game. I'm still a big fan of bringing a lot of the 1AD&D feel into my 3.5/PF1 games. While I appreciate 5e for what it is (and could not stand 4 - I felt like I was just playing WoW), we always go back to 3.5/PF1 for the incredible number of supplements to pull from. If something is imbalanced, we just fix it.
So the same as 3.5e and 5e?
Once my group realized that B/X>AD&D wasn't a *required* progression, we happily used the simpler ruleset in actual session play, with AD&D's broader options layered on top.
That is still my preferred playstyle to this day. It's fun introducing new(-er) players to concepts like 2d6 NPC Morale rolls
This was a compact, level-headed and pretty impartial comparison between often (unnecessarily) controversial subject. No lies detected, neither deep layers of nostalgic patina, nor neophilic derision (two dominant attitudes, which frequently haunt these analyses and edition war discussions). I'd prefer more deep dives for the future, but regardless of my personal preference, this was well done for what it was trying to achieve. Although I have to confess, that there was something I hadn't heard before, that the old Mentzer D&D boxed sets had the common acronym BECMI (probably because they never released all of them around here. Only Basic and Expert Rules, if my memory serves).
BECMI would stand for Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, and finally Immortal. There were rules past the Expert level.
@@xvariable1521 Yeah sure, I know it now (I did watch the video after all), but that was the first time I've heard anybody call it that. In here (Finland), people have always referred it as either Mentzer D&D, or the red box D&D, or basic D&D contra AD&D. The company which had rights to import / distribute and translate BECMI in Finland went out of business quite quickly, and never released anything except Basic and Expert Rules I believe (or maybe it was just the Basic, that was the one people had if they had any, like I did), and some adventure modules (Rahasia and couple others). Wouldn't make sense to refer it as BECMI back then, because there really wasn't true international scene back then before the internet truly took off, thus most of us were quite unaware of products which weren't officially released in this country. It's just a small tidbit I've missed in my about two decades experiences of D&D, and I was merely remaking that in otherwise well-made if basic video, there was something I wasn't aware of at all (in relation in which I was hoping for more deep dives, and less basic and material aimed at beginners).
@Aleksander Stromfors: Sadly, I find this to be a problem with far more things than just D&D. Just look at discussions about the Movie Spider-Men; many of my fellow Raimi fans tend to be overly dismissive of the MCU Spider-Man, while most younger people who only know the MCU Spider-Man just hate on and dismiss the Raimi films to no end. Sad really.
@@daniellauricella5132 I am not that much bothered by quarrelsomeness, divisiveness or dismissiveness as such. I don't think there even is a larger community in any meaningful sense, nor do D&D or RPGs even require something like that. There doesn't need to be a large scale cooperation or conformity, and tbh I can hardly see any reasons why something like that would even be desirable. People are not going to come together, and obligatory respect each others preferences or opinions, or form a common identity or unified and normative culture around D&D / RPGs.
My problem is more with the discourse about edition wars, which mostly just doesn't give anything to me. Often it's largely fruitless and tends to go on eternally around couple familiar circles. It's rarely very analytical, in a way which would actually expand anybody's understanding about actual differences between editions. Instead of perpetuating whatever public image each edition happens to have at any given time. This has been going-on as long as I've been around, some particulars and editions may change, but fundamentals are about same now as they were decade or two ago.
@@aleksanderstromfors183 I think some amount of cooperation is desirable myself. I often can't stand the overly extreme and intolerant opinions.
I still run 4e. I'm one of the few who loves that edition. And that's ok.
THIS IS NOT A KNOCK ON 4E. (Just to be clear.)
I played 1e in the eighties. 2e didn't grab me, although many of its settings did (Planescape, Spelljammer, Ravenloft). I no longer played when 3e came out, but it looked interesting; I particularly liked things like the redone saving throws, which made more sense.
4e made no sense to me. It was the clearest example of a Kuhnian paradigm shift that I'd ever experienced. It truly was (to me) like a completely foreign language. More power to you for enjoying it.
You and me both good sir.
My friends and I had a blast playing 4e for the entirety of its publishing. It was fun for what it was. 5e was a refreshing return to a more “traditional” style of D&D tho
@@tomkerruish2982 Fair enough. However I started with white box D&D and I loved 4th edition. Each to their own.
@👌🏼 okay honestly why not ? What is so wrong with letting us enjoy what we enjoy? I can not rap my head around this mindset so I genuinely want to hear why you think this ?
I started my D&D life in 1981 -- a race between my best friend and I to buy the latest and greatest. I love traditional board games so picked up DUNGEON by TSR (the predecessor to all of the co-op WoC board games {which still holds it's own}) and he D&D Basic. We quickly moved to AD&D. Some 40yrs later we now play a hybrid (HOUSE RULED) version adapting minor elements from each version (thank the gods for the internet) but it still remains AD&D 1e for me. I have played every version and of all of the if I had to give up AD&D I would play 3.5
That's interesting. I also started in 1981 and still have the original 1E books. I haven't played it as a board game since the early 90's, but it was very interesting to know what's changed from this video. It was the complexity of 1E that I found fascinating. I've always had the urge to play again, but never got around to it. Maybe one day? I've played it as a PC game. The Balders Gate series was amazing and seemed to tick many of the important boxes for me. I guess that was based around 2E? or 3E? as it came out in 1998? It's good to know there are still people out there who play it face to face. They didn't ruin the game with the later editions did they?............edit: I've just noticed that Balders gate 3 will be released next month. That should be interesting.
@@grahamtaylor6883 I wish they’d release it in optional rules sets. 3.5 would be epic.
i still think if WotC released 4e as a new IP and not "D&D" and continued to support 3.x, it would have had a much stronger following
The big thing I hated about 4e was the huge number of books involved. Rule books that had like 5 character subclasses total as pages were needed for all the powers (many of which repeated under different names between the classes anyway).
Look into "13th Age". It's what happened when the 4e designers no longer had to include any D&D-isms.
I'd say it's the "Pathfinder 2e of D&D 4e", in a way.
I'm not actually a big fan of the system, but I've been in a few campaigns with it, and I definitely get that 4e feeling from it.
I read your comment before I got to the 4th Edition section of the video and was convinced I was going to say "No you're wrong, you're just being a wishful thinker!" but actually after learning more about 4th Edition's strengths as opposed to just its weaknesses I found I agree with you! A WotC TTRPG card game that really gets the most our of the grid-based format?? That sounds really exciting. Like some modern version of chess almost.
As a lifetime banner-waver for 4E, this is raw truth
I think it should at least have been a spinoff that could have been advertised as a War Game/RPG hybrid.
Call it "Dungeons and Dragons: Conquest" or something.
We've been playing AD&D 2nd Edition so long, we know most of the important rules by heart. So, probably no changing to another AD&D Edition.
Same. Still going after more than 3 decades, but at least I have the opportunity to catch up on all the books I didn't buy back in the day.
@Thomas Taylor All the TSR editions were compatible with each other, something that is no longer the case.
@Thomas Taylor Still running 2nd edition since it absorbed all the other editions, even the Known World was absorbed by 2nd edition as Mystara, though the line never received the attention it deserved due to the financial crisis. Still, I use modules and material from the earlier editions since they are part of the lore.
@Thomas Taylor Indeed, e. g. we use the 1st Edition rules for Magic Resistance.
I don't know which is the best, but like everyone having their favorite Doctor being their first, I was raised on AD&D in 1979, and that's always been the one for me. Tomb of Horrors baby, Tomb of Horrors.
Tomb of Horrors was the best way to die. Repeatedly. :) I just don't see any of the 3e and up editions capturing what made some of the old modules so fun to "lose" while playing and have you eagerly come back for more.
For real!
So many PCs didn't even have last names, but such memorable death scenes, some still recounted to this day . . .
Old School Essentials would be my suggestion for people wanting to explore B/X. It is a 100% faithful recreation of the rules, whereas Labyrinth Lord takes some artistic license and changes some mechanics due to the understanding of the OGL at the time of its writing. Both are great, but OSE is a more faithful recreation.
Agreed. Old School Essentials is excellent
Labyrinth Lord has one big advantage right now and that's cost. I can pick up the soft cover version + PDF from DriveThruRPG for about $20. OSE is $20 for just the PDF and currently hard copies + PDF are $40 for the cheapest version of the book. The guys behind Labyrinth Lord also have the Advanced Edition Companion which is pretty close to 1st Ed AD&D, which you can get for the same price (soft cover + PDF).
Also, both are available as free PDF downloads although the artwork has been removed, so you can at least check them out.
Then there's Mutant Future which is pretty much 1st ed Gamma World (also available as a free no-picture PDF). This also includes the rules for using MF characters in LL.
@@JMcMillen If you're looking for price in the B/X clones Basic Fantasy is free in pdf form and the printed versions are sold at cost. Very, very cheap.
@@andrewcavanagh3946 At the time of my comment; Labyrinth Lord, Advanced Labyrinth Lord, & Mutant Future (Gamma World) all had free PDF versions available from Goblinoid Game. The free versions didn't include any artwork but all the rules were there.
Unfortunately, the whole OGL debacle caused them to take them down as they are going to be rewritten to not need the OGL. However, as they were freely available, you might be able to find them other places if you poke around.
I love every edition and i had a lot of fun with all of them. But 3.5 remain as my favorite both as a dm and as a player.
Interesting comment and I think it just goes to show why every edition is still played today. I also have loved to play every single edition. And I probably spent more hours playing 3rd than any other edition. But today it is probably the only edition I wouldn't play. It is just so cumbersome for me. The last time I played, I was playing an Archer, and having to recalculate all of my bonuses every single round got tiring. Not just rapid shot and Point black shot, but bless and haste and a variety of other bonus, like a ranged smite, or arcane arrows. that I was getting every round was just annoying.
Woot 3.5 edition!!
@@teraxe I 100% understand what you are saying. It is absolutely true that too many modifiers/options/variables in one turn could easily get super tiresome for a player (veteran or new to the game alike). It could be tiresome even for the rest of the party!. But, using the archer example, for me and my friends that capacity of engineering that perfect shot, getting all kind of buffs from our allies, feats, spells and terrain bonuses on top of the class features was just too good!
Have you tried pathfinder? It's basically 3.5 but with an update and way more customization
For pathfinder you have the same problem as well. For my 8th level archer I had to use q big table because calculating the modifiers on my own each round (deadly aim, point blank shot, different kinds of favored enemy) for all 4 arrows he would shoot was just to cumbersome
I’ve only ever played 2E seriously. It’s amazing how the system has evolved and been reinvented over the years.
it has all what made the old one great while also beeing much better designed and somewhat modern.
@@Seelenverheizer Except it doesn't. It streamlined the rules and made characters far too overpowered. In streamlining, it lost both variety and depth. There was real adversity in AD&D and you could die if you didn't roleplay smart. If you can just fight your way out of any encounter, if vampires are reduced to just merely a toothless boss monster, if every character is designed for optimal builds(like it's a fighting game) instead of roleplay then you lose some of what made the game special
@@RandomAllen 2e ADnd sure is a bit cleaned up but its not that much easier (at least if you dont use the complete series of class books which are OP) 2e in my book is quite dangerous and you never want to take a fight without beeing heavily advantaged.
@@RandomAllen,
Things like giving wizards more than 1 spell a day doesn't make them OP.
In fact there is nothing OP about the transitions of 3.X. Those made it more realistic.
If you are arguing about 5e & maybe 4e than yes, some is OP. I don't like how a wizard has the same chance of weapon attack as a fighter.
I personally prefer 3.5. I've run it custom for a great many years and players have enjoyed the style. heck, my player will tell you they don't mind making a new char after death because of how I set up char creation. You always feel like you have a great starting char.
@Joe Blow i grew up on gen 1 and love 2nd and was reluctant to get into 3rd, till lost all my 2nd edition books in an accident. So I tried 3rd and fell in love with it. Now I've perfected my DMing style and the game flows wonderfully.
Opposing viewpoint, i like rolling stats and getting as close to the classic 3d6 straight down method as my GM (or my players if I'm running), the CR system has always made it easy for GMs to make most combats a cakewalk. What I do as GM to empower players is give them faster feat gain.
@@keithsimonh 3d6 down the line is something I tend to avoid for more modern D&D, but am happy to use for older games. I mean, in 3.5, if you start out as a wizard with only a 13 intelligence, then your spells are easy to save against, you have fewer spell slots, and once you hit level 11, you start being unable to cast the highest level spells that should be available to you. In AD&D, on the other hand, you are limited to level 6 spells (so you don't gain 7th level spells at 13th level), but it doesn't affect spell saves, and this is at a point that the majority of characters will never reach.
I would be happy to play a character with a 9 in their class's main stat in AD&D - they're still entirely playable at single digit levels. A first level fighter with 9 strength will still have a +1 to hit and +2 to damage with their chosen weapon - the same bonus a non-fighter with 18 strength gets. A first level wizard with 9 intelligence can cast just as well as a first level wizard with 18 intelligence (though will have trouble learning new spells and a lower limit on how many they can know), and if they still have 9 intelligence by level 7, they're still able to cast 4th level spells. In 3.5, a fighter with 9 strength is a really bad fighter, and a wizard with 9 intelligence is a commoner who can't even cast the simplest of cantrips.
@@Parker8752 but by 11th level that wizard's Int can be 15, not sure if you accounted for that because I reject build optimisation as a flawed ideology, and thus I don't have the spell tables memorized, though i recognize some people enjoy it. Further than that, spells by level tends to get thrown out in favor of more in-depth spell research and discovery when the players take up my more adventurous homebrew modules. I'm strongly biased though because of a longtime former friend having a small fit because, on standard rolls, they weren't able to get the three 18s they needed to make some netdecked monstrosity of a build work. You never have to choose your class before you roll either, in fact, the primary source of fun in the 3d6 down method is it can suggest builds that you'd normally never consider because under 'more optimal' play they aren't viable under ideal circumstances.
@@keithsimonh I did take the two stat bumps into account - at 15 int, you can cast 5th level spells, which you get at 9th level. At level 11, you get 6th level spells, which you then have to wait until level 12 to actually use.
Now everything I'm saying here comes with the obvious caveat of if your players enjoy it, then you're obviously not doing anything wrong. However, if you want to be a fighter who does more than just stand there and full attack, you need at least two 13s to take the required feats - something that most 3d6 arrays won't provide, and that if done in order, you are even less likely to get the required stats.
Want to fight with rapier and dagger (a very common combo historically), or wants to be able to smack people in the face with a shield (again, common tactic)? If you don't have a 15 Dexterity, that'll be a no. Want to shoot more than once per six seconds? Dexterity 13, or wait until BAB 6. Want to disarm a humanoid foe without getting smacked in the face? Int 13 or bust.
Much of this is down to the designers of the game not knowing much about medieval/renaissance combat, sure, and this can be easily rectified by reducing or eliminating stat requirements for certain feats, but yeah; most of the more interesting mechanics are effectively locked behind stat requirements, and given that on average, your highest stat with 3d6 will be a 13, that makes it really hard to even take fun but less than optimal combinations.
Again, this is why I'd be fine with 3d6 in order for AD&D 2e - pretty much none of the mechanics are locked behind having a stat at a minimum level (beyond the prerequisites for entering the class in the first place, of course). Using the Complete Fighter's Handbook, I can specialise in two weapon fighting, pick up a sword and dagger, and only use my dagger attacks for parries - and this only requires the 9 strength that I needed to become a fighter in the first place.
3.5 is probably what I've played/run the most. I started on 2E, but I was a kid at the time and it was coming to the end of it's life-cycle, so I gravitated towards 3rd as that was in print. I'll run 5E if I'm with a group of total beginners who are barely familiar with the concept of table-top rpgs. It's fun, but lacks the sheer breadth of options I've grown used to.
Totally!
I'm playing 5e cause that's what the people I found are, but I am also setting up a 3.5e as well.
3rd edition had a skill system that actually worked better. The proficiency system in 2nd created too many “no fail” circumstances.
AD&D 2nd edition is what I grew up on, but I do like Pathfinder 3.5 for homebrew
Same. Although I am starting to stroll into less crunchy systems lately, but PF 1e is where the sweet spot is for me as well. I am lately playing 4e as a skirmish mini game and it's relatively good, but as an rpg is meh, 5e is OK but one gets bored of the system and it's massive limitations quickly. 2e with some of the stupid restrictions like kits and classes being race limited, is also really good. I am really interested in seeing how the Savage Worlds Pathfinder thing works out, it could be a better gateway than 5e.
I really appreciate you giving 4th edition a fair shake. You nailed the demographic who liked it with the footage from Final Fantasy Tactics. It's the favorite game among many in my circle of friends, so we loved 4e.
My son loved 4e, until I had him play with our pathfinder group (3.5 ish lol) and he quickly realized what a different game it was and he never went back to 4e. To each their own though :)
I personally like 4e better than 5e because they're more similar than you'd think, it's just that 4e is better balanced and says many of the unspoken or informal rules on the paper which I always preferred over having to figure out what the designers want to build
I also never liked the Quadratic Wizard, Linear Fighter issue because it just means the fighter feels useless at any level higher than 8th in 5e, and in 5e the Wizard felt useable before 8th and stronger after, but in 4e, everyone was around the same power
I started playing tabletop with 4th edition D&D and Call of Cthulhu my first semester of college, back in 2015. I've played and run a great many games since, and to this day no other RPG system lets me run a satisfying combat session like 4e. Finally starting a game of it after a three year hiatus.
I think my favorite retroclone is Basic Fantasy RPG. It takes the basic idea of 1st edition and replaces the THAC0 system with the more modern d20 mechanics.
Same! The community has plenty of adventures and supplements to use, and the modern factors such as ascending AC are a blessing. BFRPG is how I cut my teeth on retroclones, and it's the one to beat for me.
@@raziyatheseeker And since only the combat mechanics are changed, it's actually easy to convert modules over from 1st & 2nd ed to BFRPG.
My group plays with a very heavily modified Version of Basic Fantasy and I'm currently compiling my changes into its own book
@@tubekiller26 I've made a few attempts at giving the 2nd ed rules the Basic Fantasy treatment, but haven't written everything down. To be honest, I'd like the complexity of 2nd edition, and their thief skill rules are arguably better.
And it's FREE!
There's also Dave Arneson/M.A.R. Barker style tabletop campaign. No rule books. Just a campaign folder, a map, a general idea of setting and genre, and a simple dice resolution mechanic like an opposed roll, and just make shit up as you go along. It actually works quite a bit better than one might assume with a fair and impartial referee and creative and willing players.
To each his own, I enjoyed a 4E group because the DM was very good proving that the edition doesn't matter as long as you have someone running the campaign that is good at what he or she does. Personally, 3.5 is my favorite though. Can't get into 5e as much as the more "rules" heavy systems
Same, Ive a blast with 4e, as a player and as a DM. 3.5 was my entry point in d&d but the martial gap with caster clases was so high that i didnt enjoyed it so much. Also more rules heavy than 3.5? is that a joke? xD
@BlackMage Yeah, don't even get me started on that BAB shit. 3.5e has tiny rules for EVERYTHING.
@BlackMage That's not what they said. They said they can't get into 5e as much as they were into the mores rules heavy versions of the game.
This is an excellent point, I have played some terrible game systems with really great DMs and/or players and some really good systems with some really bad DMs and/or people (bad at gaming that is).
@@guillermofischer1837 I think you read my comment wrong, I said that I can't get into 5e as much as I can the other more rules heavy systems
Started in 3.5, moved to 4 & 5. Sold everything and now I'm happy playing OD&D clones and Basic Fantasy RPG. BFRPG is based on the 3.5 OGL, simplifies it to the level of Basic D&D and also it's FREE on PDF, and $5 print. The adventures are $3 print and free on PDF.
Tocayo
Hey look an ad bot pushing a product.
@@skjoldrbjorn I doubt it's an ad bot, as Basic Fantasy is more of a fan-supported project than a polished product.
It's not a bad game at all, but it sits in a middle ground between Basic and Advanced which leaves me wondering why not use one of those rule sets instead.
@@benbattiste1041 in many ways it is much closer to Basic (hence the name) but the similarities to Advanced have more to do with using the SRD from 3.5 to flesh it out.
About to run my first game of BFRPG this week. Super excited about the system, especially because every player can get a copy of the book for $5 printed. Have played 3.5, 4, pathfinder, and 5.
Started playing in 1977. Played every edition for at least a little bit, but always end up going back to 2e. In my opinion it was the most fun to play, even if it got a bit silly with how many handbooks they issued.
I think 3.5 is my favorite edition of D&D but I’ve never played an edition I thought was bad so it’s a tough call.
I really liked 3.5, but it burnt my brain. There was just too much to juggle compared to earlier editions, which I think is what spawned most people's re-interest in old skool rules.
@@IsaBilal,
I don't see how.
BAB was a lot easier than Thac0.
@@CurlyFromTheSwirly it was a bloated rule mongering mess. IT sucked.
@@SophiaAphrodite,
AD&D totally was a total hardcore mess of fool rules.
I mean why would the designers make some races longer lived but put a limit on their levels?
I liked what seemed to be Wizard's vision of making it easier and more realistic rules in 3.X. But 4e threw out the rules completely, and 5e brings a whole new set of rules.
2nd édition all the way for me, and it's definitly not because i own like 10 or more Monsters Manuals of every sorts ;).
For us, it was a cleaned up version of the sometimes messy 1rst edition without going too far from 1rst.
Major con was, that in your character devellopment it was better to forsee access to magic at any point (via multi or dual classing). Magic users of any kind were soooo fun to play (half giant war/psionist to simple mage or cleric/thief for exemples). But plain war and even thief were kinda boring in the long run imo
Saving throw were to be used vvveerrrrry cautionly by dm, one life or death throw was fun from times to times, but loosing a loved char because you failed your 10th saving throw in the evenning, meehhh :/.
I personnaly had to rework the magic resistance system A LOT but in the end i liked it :) (first decision was to remove the fact that a creature was able to lower its magic resistance to benefit from certain spells, my point of view was, you are resistant or you are not, but it's not a decision etc etc ;) )
So all in all, with very little twinking from here and there, and the game was really satisfying.
The only thing I changed in regards to magic resistance was the dispelling effect in regards to in place spells as that seemed more powerful than it should be. I also found precedent in some of the material that the dispelling effect was not used in settings with a lot of magic resistant creatures, like Planescape for it wrecked too many magical effects. I never made the change you did with magic resistance though as some creatures couldn't control magic resistance like the firbolg. It would seem odd that drow cannot benefit from their own spells due to their high magic resistance. Instead, I went with all the spells and abilities that were designed to lower, bypass, or ignore magic resistance.
I do agree thieves can get boring, especially if they are basic and not multi-classed. In fact they are almost unnecessary at time for the other classes can perform many of their abilities. But fighters are a must, especially if you give them the upgrade of weapon mastery which makes them so much better. One didn't need to have access to magic, but it is better if they have access to something that is more than a basic ability of any class, whether that is mastery, acrobatics, or some other nifty trick.
idk fighter with weapon mastery goes brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Thief sucks very much tho. I tried to much to fix thief but it just kinda doesnt work if you as a DM do not shoehorn stuff in really hard to have the thief actually be not completly useless.
@@Seelenverheizer How long does it go brrrrrrr?
I've heard AD&D had less problems with limiting martial characters than 3rd edition (no mobility issues to do their job) but that casters still grow far more powerful at the higher levels.
I'm just curious the breaking point where a player in an equal level party is likely to start wishing they were playing a caster (particularly a Magic User) instead
@@priestesslucy in 2e you basicly want to go with 2 fighters 1 cleric and 1 mage. What makes fighters good is how their to hit chance goes up every level while they can at level 5 get +3 to hit and damage from becoming a weapon master which is quite good while they can stack AC with shields as well. Clerics are best when wearing heavy armour as well with shield etc. Early on they can kind of keep pace with the warriors in fighting while also having good spells them only getting +2 to hit every 3 levels as well as not beeing able to specialises/master a weapon does make them becomeing more about spellcasting, buffing and the melee is a backup or if the frontline needs to grind. The mage is there for buffs, aoe damage as well as ulility.
Whats cool is that this composition stays the same along the levels. Warrior scales well and dont expant resources. Wizzards and clerics bring the buffs and the utility.
Doubling up on mages and clerics PC whise has extremly diminishing returns. Also around lvl 9 one can expect some fallowers and henchmen to actually be low lvl clerics or mages which can be usefull to have them bring some obsucre utility spells or additonal healing but that best left for NPCs.
Once mages reach around 8th level spells its where they start to actually getting out of hand. Still they only tend to have like 20-25 HP an can get slain by a single attack quite easily.
Also the way high level monsters scale their saves tend to become 3+ and 40-70% magic resistance on top so mages bring the buffs but the swords do the talking.
One really strong variation of that party is to have a multiclassed fighter/cleric which does make the cleric level a bit slower but that PC is a much better warrior, is tankier and cant multiple attacks per round. Its a lot about dropping 1-2 rounds of buffs and then reinforcing the fighters in the frontline.
So the 3 main classes arent balanced between them but you still want to have them all in the party.
Sadly Thief is completely worthless shit for its abilities are done better by lvl 2 spells and their hitbonuses are awefull, they even have the worst saves and wierdly enought they arent even good at non weapon proficiencies. One can help the thief by multiclassing but the thief simply drags every other class down. Keep the class for the henchmen or let the player that really want to play thief start with 2-3 more levels then the rest. They level faster which does balance them out a tiny bit but still. Over the years i have tried multiple houserule buffs but i have never really found a good spot for them other then making them more closely resemble a fighter with some mundane tricks up their sleeve.
@@priestesslucy If you play 2e games starting at low level (as you should) then wizards are fragile glass cannons that the fighters have to carefully escort and protect up throu level 8 or 9. That means that whenever the wizard is able to pull off a sweet magic blast, its something the whole party helped make happen. And once Wizards start to pull ahead, at 9+, its again something the whole party invested in, so martials, in mny experience, didn't resent it much because they had a hand in making it happen. Few of the games I played in over the 16 years of playing 2e made it far past 10-11 level anyway.
Even though it's not dnd, 13th age I feel captures 3rd and 4th Ed and really takes what made both awesome and puts them together. I highly recommend it.
Started with BECMI and AD&D 2nd edition, but B/X and its retroclones are my favorite version of the game.
B/X and its clones are so good. A lot less moving parts means a lot of customization (if desired), and it's how I got into old-school gaming.
my grandpa raised my family on 2E, and i'm going to take over DM'ing with it now that I'm living with my cousins atm. It's pretty intimidating, but i love it honestly. i really liked 3.5 as well playing that with friends in the early 2000's. great video!
I know that this is an old comment, but I just wanted to let you know that it's awesome that D&D is a family affair for you. Grandpa Jaco rules! I hope that I can make it one for my future family as well! 3.5 is my favorite edition.
@@wezacker6482,
Long live 3.5!
This is possibly the best breakdown of the various D&D editions/rulesets that I have seen. No bias, no bull, and brief no-nonsense callouts to OSR titles that simulate/recreate the various styles of play. Kudos on a job well done, sir.
The history of original D&D is complex and contested territory, but it’s drastically oversimplifying things to say that it was based on Chainmail. Dave Arneson jettisoned that system’s combat tables quickly and made his own rules, which were never fully codified in any accessible form. Modern D&D history credits several prior games including an open ended game called Braunstein.
It’s worth discussing that the older editions gave more experience for gold pieces of treasure found than for fighting monsters. This gave the game a heavy emphasis on exploration rather than combat - a noticeable difference. I’ve run OD&D, Swords & Wizardry, B/X, Labyrinth Lord, Rules Cyclopedia, 1e, 2e, 3e, and 5e, and the differences with the older editions are noteworthy.
That gold thing is actually really interesting
@@carso1500 it's not only gold you get experience for but also for using class abilities and general things a player comes up with that help the party .
Table 33: Common Individual Awards
Player has a clever idea 50-100 XP
Player has an idea that saves the party 100-500 XP
Player role-plays his character well *100-200 XP
Player encourages others to participate100-200 XP
Defeating a creature in a single combatXP value/creature XP
Table 34: Individual Class Awards
Warrior Award Per Hit Die of creature defeated10 XP/level
Priest Award Per successful use of a granted power 100 XP
Spells cast to further ethos100 XP/spell level*
Making potion or scroll XP value
Making permanent magical itemXP value
Wizard Award Spells cast to overcome foes or problems 50 XP/spell level
Spells successfully researched 500 XP/spell level
Making potion or scroll XP value
Making permanent magical item XP value
Rogue Award Per successful use of a special ability 200 XP
Per gold piece value of treasure obtained 2 XP
2 XP Per Hit Die of creatures defeated (bard only)5 XP
* The priest character gains experience for those spells which, when cast, support the beliefs and attitudes of his mythos. Thus, a priest of a woodland deity would not gain experience for using an entangle spell to trap a group of orcs who were attacking his party, since this has little to do with the woodlands. If the priest were to use the same spell to trap the same orcs just as they were attempting to set fire to the forest, the character would gain the bonus.
My adult kids prefer 5e. I prefer Advanced 2nd Edition.
2nd edition is my preference as well as there has never been another game, edition, or clone with as many options that were available in that edition.
2nd was great, tons of options and I got most the books pretty cheap due to the TSR buy out by WoC. My local stores sold all those books half price despite imo being better than most the wizards of the coast versions that were filled with Typo's and ugly artwork.
My only complaint about 2nd edition was a few to many instant death mechanics combined with how slow XP gain can be at higher levels. When a fight with things like a Great Worm Dragon split amongst your party barely makes 2k xp, and you need 50k+ for a level it's kind of sad. Especially given if you die your pretty screwed as resurrection or raise dead not super easy to come by in the standard setting.
This lead to a lot of "fresh starts" for me and my friends. We made characters, got to about level 5 or 6 and either gave up or died. Having to start over again at level 1. I only had one character who ever made it to a high level, a priest that I think made it to level 11. That was a character I played pretty regularly in a campaign for about 5 years irl....It would take months of 8-10 hour sessions every week to gain a level.
@@JustaGuy_Gaming The XP pattern you describe really encouraged dual-classing, which is the AD&D mechanic I most miss in new editions.
@@SylviusTheMad You can still homebrew things up, but the majority of the people who do come up with hillariously overpowered stuff. Really hard to get a balanced example that isn't a carbon copy of something else.
I wonder if 6th edition will be compatible with 5e.
Always been stuck on 3rd since my uncle gifted me his 3.0phb
Interesting. I am pretty new to DND. So I am into 5E, because that is what is available. I do appreciate it being light on rules. It is already very difficult to learn. Having a more difficult version sounds like a nightmare. I do like the old school trend of having basic and advanced versions. I hope this comes back. Just have the basic version explained in the player handbook and maybe the DM guide. Then add extra rules for an advanced game in supplimentary books. They can be like the Xanathar abd Tasha books.
I am interested in 4E. I got the books long ago, but didn't play. One thing I do like about 4E is the variety of classes. I like how a class can be determined by a combo of magic source and the role. I don't remember the exact wording. Magic source provides a sense of flavor. There can be martial, arcane, holy, nature and psychic. Role determines how a class would play in battle. There can be tank, cannon, support and scout. The wording is something like that. I don't remeber the specifics. One thing I don't like about 5E is that it seems to shaft martial classes. They don't get spells, ehich sucks. The video did talk about how 4E gives all classes spells. That is nice. That may be something to incorporate. Maybe I ought to check 4E. I wonder what the backlash was about.
Advanced v1 was my era back in 1982. The classic modules like White Plume Mountain, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Tomb of Horrors and the mighty Temple of Elemental Evil were great fun to play as a 13 year old. Stranger Things for real!
3rd. Edition just had the BEST-LOOKING core rule-books ever published.
Pathfinder fixes a lot of the issues with 3.5 mentioned in the video. It has much better class balance, with martial classes being much better, and far more customization options with each class being far more versatile as nearly every class lets you choose class abilities at certain levels (often even levels) so that two characters of a class can play completely differently by second level. It also has archetypes, which let you replace base class abilities with alternate class abilities for more specific classes. Pathfinder has most of the benefits of 3.5 while fixing the issues and being more customizable than AD&D 2e.
I got into d&d with 5e. found pathfinder while looking for a 5e group, played some 3.5e as well, i have now played dozens of pf (and a fair few 3.5e) games, dmd lots of pathfinder (and 1 3.5e game that got benched after a member went to jail. only 3 players ;-; all that writing....). I have played 3 5e games. its not bad at all, but its not what everyone pretends it is. the only thing keeping it from having as many redundant options and bad sub classes as older editions is that there are barely 10 options per class to begin with and most of them still suck. its far too streamlined for creative customization and they try so hard to balance classes many of them end up far under tuned (like arcane archer, which i want to like but eldritch knight, or hell a fucking valor bard, do it better....)
@@ShadowAraun Yeah... I have to agree. I started out with Pathfinder (am I the only one who did that based on the material being free online?) and always thought it was like a slightly inferior product because I didn't know enough about the other editions. Then, a few years later, I got the chance to try 5e and... god, where do you even start?
I guess it's nice WotC tried making a more accessible system, like a more modern reinterpretation of Basic Dungeons & Dragons, but I can't take it seriously. For all its faults, I always got the impression 4e at least tried to be ambitious; 5e feels like it's the opposite of ambitious.
While that was Paizo's goal, they didn't fix anything. PF is just new house rules for 3e. Some are better, some are worse. I run 3e with my own house rules...
Mathfinder
It still uses the generic d20 system.
I'm surprised for the 3.5 section you didn't show Temple of Elemental Evil aka the best representation of the 3.5 rules in video games. Not a criticism just something I thought would be in the video.
Decent game as well.
Playing through BG3's homebrewed up pile of status wackiness made me miss TOEE's implementation enough I reinstalled it.
I have DM'd the Original Game, 1E, 2E, 3/3.5, PF 1E, and 5E. I have played Original, Basic, 1E, 2E, and 3E. I never DM'd 4E, it looked like a decent game but it wasn't what I wanted to run. And, I haven't been a player since early 3E. 3.5E if you count the Neverwinter Nights 2 video game. All of which leads me to the conclusions than: 1. I'm old :D 2. I've had a lot of fun playing D&D.
i lightly played AD&D, 3e and 3.5e. I am now playing 5e regularly and I really enjoy it. So simple to learn and play.
5e simple 😅🤣😂
Most my experience in tabletop's through Pathfinder v1, so it kinda has a special place in my heart because of that.
A great pedigree, too. Based on 3.5 and that is still many peoples favourite edition.
Just to clarify, the immortal set did get another version when BECMI was reprinted into the Rules Cyclopedia (BECM) with the accompanying box set: Wrath of the Immortals (I). The setting for original D&D (The Known World) would later become incorporated into 2nd edition under the Mystara campaign setting. It should also be noted that there were conversion rules so that one could take the characters from D&D (BECMI and later versions) into AD&D 2nd edition and vice versa before the D&D line was absorbed fully into 2nd edition altogether in 1994.
DM It All is quite accurate in how much material was published during 2nd edition giving so many options and sources for rules across hundreds of books for both DMs and players. This edition also provided some of the most developed campaign setting material that was never quite equaled after this edition.
"A lot of players felt these changes moved D&D away from the grounded Gygaxian design of the past and turned D&D into an over the top video game."
Whereas 3rd edition just turned D&D into a video game version of D&D. WotC also had to retcon the existing canon and lore of the original settings to reflect the drastic change in rules from 2nd edition to 3rd edition that effectively ruined the verisimilitude of those settings.
About the retconning, I don't know how much of that they did, but it would have been preferable to what they usually did, yet another world-altering cataclysm. The whole "Time of Troubles" in Forgotten Realms was in order to excuse all the changes from 1st to 2nd edition AD&D (even though by modern standards, there weren't that many), and likewise the "Spellplague" to 4th edition, and "The sundering" to 5th edition. D&D Mystara got "Wrath of the Immortals", another cataclysm to justify introducing (apparently somewhat altered?) immortal rules again after leaving them out of Rules Cyclopedia.
@@Mnnvint All of a sudden there are dwarven wizards when there never have been before in the Realms? Suddenly, the elves decide to renege on the decision to retreat to Evermeet that took centuries to decide? How the cosmology has drastically changed for the worse in D&D until it is at an all time low in the 5th edition model?
No, the retconning was worse as there was no excuse for the changes WotC decided to do. At least with a world shattering event, some of it can be explained as to why there was a shift. But not with 3rd edition. Suddenly things are different with the weakest excuse as to why. Suddenly, priest can free cast healing magic for no reason. Inexplicably, anyone can be anything. Magic items changed how they work while many ceased to exist.
One thing you have to remember about the "cataclysm event" with TSR is that not every setting actually experienced one and not at the same time. The one on Forgotten Realms was not actually experienced on Greyhawk or Lankhmar as neither setting had one (Greyhawk Wars was not an actual rule change, just an event), while the cataclysm in Dragonlance and The known World occured at different times relative to Forgotten Realms. Even when The Known World shifted to 2nd edition as Mystara, there was no cataclysm at that point, just a rule shift that had already been prepared years in advance with the conversion rules.
No, WotC has sucked at the transitions and explaining the rule changes they have embarked on while at the same time having to retcon every TSR setting beyond belief and losing so much lore and richness from the earlier editions.
@@craigtucker1290 I always felt the need to explain a rules change in world rather ridiculous. It's a bloody game, ignore it and move on.
@@Welverin Well it does depend on how you play the game. If you play a shallow game not dependant on a setting or established history, then it matters as to why something has drastically change, like the elimination of the assassin class in Forgotten Realms. This was explained as the god murder drawing in the essence of all assassins in a bid to increase his power, something that god could do as assassins were his portfolio. This also allows one to use the previously established lore without having to retcon anything as WotC has continually have had to do.
Personally, I prefer an established setting with history and lore over a limited homebrew or generic setting, but to each their own.
@@craigtucker1290 The depth of the campaign has nothing to do with it, it's the willingness of the people involved to accept the fact things are different that matters.
p.s. Your assassin example is awful, because an assassin is just a professional killer. An in world assassin could be represented by any class, and the fact the assassin class was removed doesn't mean assassin's needed to cease to exist in the world.
A better example would be dwarven mages existing when they didn't before.
While I DM mostly 5th edition these days, I had WAY too much fun with 4th edition. I grew very accustomed to its balance and could do very balanced encounters for my players, something I cannot properly do after years of DMing 5e. Though 5e is much simpler and I still have great experience with it.
There are some easy fixes for 5e to balance encounters. First, if you have many players in the party, consider using the theoretical max HP for monsters. E.g. if a monster has 8d6+12 hitpoints just give them 60 hp. If the players are using loud spells in combat, consider calling in reinforcement units. E.g. if the party finds a trio of necromancers and their skeletons and attacks, maybe a hoard of zombies and several more necromancers arrive via a side passage. Consider adding flying creatures to an encounter, even ones with ranged attacks. While party members might hate spells that incapacitate them, leaving them with nothing to do but roll a Saving Throw at the end of their turn, there are alternatives that can shield enemies or provide obstacles. E.g. even a simple Fog Cloud can potentially shut down ranged party members, since most players don't pack spells that generate gusts of wind.
If you're looking for something with a similar feel to 4e, I'd recommend checking out 13th Age. It has a lot of mechanics clearly inspired by/pulled from 4e (one of the main designers was on the design team for 4e, so it's not surprising), but also makes some quality-of-life changes, like a more simplified distance/movement rules so you don't need a grid to play.
Give a look at pathfinder 2e. Heavily inspired by D&D 4e edition and really well balanced.
The Last Castaigne I am actually planning to check the PF 2 although I’m yet to find party for it
@@OmegaEnvych There's plenty of Society play groups on Discord. (Roll for Combat being the largest) If public play is your style.
Bro you’re just flat high quality. Excellent work man.
16:03 Yeah. You can thank Skip Williams for that. During 3.5e, he kept favoring casters- Wizards in particular- while snubbing melee. 3.5e rolled out a few changes to melee that made Fighters a 2-level dip, more or less. Well, Williams, but also Monte Cooke, who was responsible for "Ivory Tower Game Design," loading the game with "trap options" that rewarded veteran players and punished newcomers, making the game too much like a CCG.
Both of these lead to high levels in 3.5e turning into "rocket tag" with either obscene amounts of damage, or absurd, "save or die" effects aplenty.
3.5e was by no means a perfect edition, though it, and Pathfinder, come the closest in my mind to perfection for the game.
(Note: If for some reason you think that's 5e? Great! I don't think 5e is a bad edition by any stretch- that's 2e, honestly- It's just not my cup of tea. God. Now I sound like one of those people who thinks 1e is the best edition, don't I...?)
As someone who grew up with 3.5, I could never get into Pathfinder, it had the same balance issues as 3.5, but didn't have psionic or ToB classes, which were my favourite classes from 3.5
@@marsupialmole3926 there's a psionics splat for PF, the Aegis class is a completely broken version of the soul knife. Long story short, abusing size category rules to turn a longbow into a handheld ballista at level 3.
@@marsupialmole3926 pathfinder added a number of psionic classes, kineticist and kinetic knight are exceptionally powerful if built right.
@@goolabbolshevish1t651 No it didin't, it added "occult" classes that had "psychic" abilities that were, flavor wise, very similar to psionics, but were mechanically far closer to more traditional spellcasters. The closest occult class to psionics was the kineticist, and that was still wildly separate from the mechanics of psionic casting from 3.5.
I don't like psionics because they're psychic, I like them because the power point system was interesting and fun to mess with
The nice thing with less detailed rulesets, is that if players start playing "rocket tag" and abusing the hell out of the rules, it's so much easier to just change the rules, or steer around it in other ways (if there's a particularly troublesome wizard spell in 2nd edition or earlier for instance? Just never let the character find that spell, they can't use them until they have them in their spellbook! And 2nd edition priests, used to spheres, probably won't be too upset if you remove.)
Changing anything important in 3rd or later seems pretty daunting by comparison.
My group still uses 3.5, and will likely keep using it from here on out.
You are one of the few smart people who refuse to be duped by WOTC's terrible business model of making people rebuy the books every half decade or so.
@@sethseth9059 Thanks brother, I think so too. 3.5 definitely has power creep issues, but other than that to me it's perfect. So many ways to build a completely unique character that feels very rewarding on the way to level 20 and beyond. And the open d20 license ensures that you never run out of new content to use.
Haha boomer
@@charachristopoulou3122 I'm a millenial actually.
@@TheRosswise haha millenial
I know Advanced D&D 1 edition and it was the best one ,spells and combat where more deadly ,there where 2 player handbooks and 3 monster manuals a lot more rules but easy to learn ,I have seen 5th edition and the Sorceror is a plus and there also some more positive changes ,but still the rules have become to soft less risk in a fight or adventure .And searching for spells and how everthing works cost so much more time and that with only 1 book .
yeah 5e started as a very easy on the player game and completly devolved into a powerfantasy of inimaginable proportions. I hope next edition or 5.5 might actually scale some power out of the system. Players hitting lvl 3 reaching like 70% of the power of a lvl 20 character makes it such a meme. at that point one can opt to play some cooperative story telling game rather then dnd.
I’ve always heard negatives about 4E, but after watching this I’m actually very interested in it. I love the emphasis on high fantasy here with how each class possess unique powers and such. Makes everyone feel special without the need of being a wizard.
started in 74 around 77 my dm came up with his own tables where you could hit but armor absorbed so much damage, also dice rolls for race. everyone was in college or military by 81. still miss those days
Original D&D was the first D&D that I actually GM'd, although this came after playing 3e, 3.5e, 4e, 2e, and RC. It's pretty much the only official version of D&D that I'd be likely to actually run again, except maybe B/X (and then I'd probably end up running OSE or BFRPG).
That said, my favourite D&D-alike is Whitehack, which is derived from Swords & Wizardry White Box, which is itself derived from OD&D. Whitehack includes player defined traits and freeform magic that costs HP to cast. Our group has run multiple campaigns in it, and has even tweaked it to run Transformers and Shadowrun.
FINALLY - i clicked this as fast i could!
As someone who played 3 and 3.5
And can't understand why 5th is so popular, I was looking for a video like this
Love to see an update with 5.5e 😂❤
4e will always have a special place in my heart cause it was my first and favorite system, but I tend to play 5e more since it’s easier to find a group for it
I think 4e gets a lot of unjustified hate because it was so radically different from what came before. A lot of people complain about how overpowered casters are compared to marshal classes in other editions and 4e fixed that. On top of that it had a really cinematic combat system that was super fun to play and DM.
4e is still my favorite. I do wish it was easier to find groups for it.
@@davidcollier2500 3rd edition had more radical changes than 4e did. Just saying
@@cespinar could you elaborate?
I'm trying to get a better feeling for the strengths and flaws of the various editions and it always fascinates me when I see an opinion that seems to diverge from what appears to be the common consensus.
First Edition AD&D with Call of Cthulhu mixed in is the most fun imho. The dungeon master is key to making everything work reasonably. A good, experienced dungeon master is key to combining these two scenarios but done well it is so much fun. Cthulhu is a good spice for first edition AD&D.
I just want you to know that your previous video was the first one I watched on this channel. Since then I have watched every video you’ve made-something I haven’t done for any other D&D channel. Today, I was so excited to see a new video that I realized I need to subscribe. I can hardly stand the wait between uploads, but very much appreciate the hard work and dedication you put into them. These are some of the most well-researched and informative videos I’ve watched and look forward to more in the future. Thank you so much!
3.5 with a dash of 5e is my cup of tea. 3.5 is so modular it’s ridiculous it wasn’t more popular and 5e is perfect for getting people who have no concept of playing ttrpg’s a crash course before you play 3.5
Thanks for being so even handed about the editions, especially 4e! I still have a soft spot for 4e, so hearing you give it it's due was really nice.
I've played every edition since AD&D (plus PF/PF2e) and 4th edition is my favourite.
Combat was great, but it did require minis. Rules for out of combat were also really good.
I felt I had more ability to customize my character, and yet you didn't tend to have a problem with one player overshadowing the others (because classes were balanced)
The 2 biggest problems for 4e were:
1) The lack of a digital tabletop (especially as we had been promised it)
2) People forgetting that they were allowed to roleplay: "It says here that the power is called X and it looks like Y when I use it"
Call it what you want, and describe it how you imagine it people!
So people didn't bother to roleplay, and then they complained that it didn't let them roleplay!
@@dougfile6644 ... stop trolling
no one likes 4e
@@zarthemad8386 Not true at all. As a 4e fan, I assure you, there are dozens of us. Dozens!
Nice to see someone who doesn't just say "Why should you play 4e? You shouldn't, next!" For real it solved a couple issues that had bugged me since I started playing in '86
I say this just because it made me happier than it should have!!!
This video popped into my feed.
I haven't thought about D&D in YEARS.
I just collected a bunch of childhood boxes.
Reminds me I had some books.
Just went and uncovered First Edition Dieties and Demigods 1st Players Hand book, Rules Cyclopedia, Legends and Lore and a bunch of old Modules including the first Spell Jammer and the first module we used to call "the red box"
The fucking memories lolol
I wish there was a teenager out there that could appreciate those time capsules...
This video was easily the most even handed coverage of the various D&D rules sets I have ever seen. Concurrently it also contained the most adept evasion of the internal and external politics surrounding the demise of TSR I have ever seen in a discussion of the game's history.
AD&D 2nd edition was my introduction into table top RPG's and as such will always have a special place in my heart...the BG and ID video games based on that system are some of the best. Rangers created with the 2nd edition Rangers Handbook are, by far, the funnest class to play in any edition, at least for me. Took me a while to warm up to 3rd edition but by the time Pathfinder had refined the system into what it is today, it became my favorite. Never cared for 4th edition at all and because of that, I've never given 5th edition a try...maybe I should but IMO it would just be impossible to top the current pathfinder system.
I'll also add that a good alternative to 3rd edition is the Wheel of Time RPG. Uses the D20 system but has some pretty unique classes and a different magic system. If you like 3e, give it a try.
I grew up with 2nd Edition, and didn't warm up to 3rd until near the end of 3.5. I hated 4th, but these days I'd be willing to play it if bribed with beer.
I love 5th edition, because it reminds me of a lot of the best parts of 2nd and 3rd, without falling prey to the insane splatbook creep of 3.5 or the way none of 2nd's mechanics interacted with each other very well. I especially enjoy the way 5e's subclasses find a good balance between the kits of 2e and the prestige classes of 3.5e. And everything is so internally consistent, it's really easy to homebrew stuff without it being overpowered Mary Sue nonsense. Just, you know, as always, avoid every single thing that comes from dandwiki like it's got smallpox.
I think the quality of 5e's design is big part of why D&D has suddenly become popular with the kinds of people who wouldn't have been caught dead playing in the '80s or '90s. It's easy to pick up, has internally consistent logic, and it allows opportunities for some players to choose to take on more complexity if they want it, without leaving a power discrepancy between them and the players that like to keep their character sheet light and simple. I'm currently playing a character that's designed to have enough super-noodley book keeping to keep me from falling asleep while the forever-Rogue player takes 20 minutes to decide "I'm going to stab them for a sneak attack."
@@nicholasnewell6360,
nothing insane about the splat books. more books, more options. don't want them, don't use them. but many had so much good stuff.
Nice summary. I use to play Basic to Masters, bought Immortals, but never played it as about that time my party was moving away and "growing up" and didn't have time to play. I never tried to find a new group, but the fun we had are still some of my best teenage memories. I have new friends who play 5th, but now it's me that doesn't have the time. Such it life, but I still like to hear their adventures.
We refer to edition 3.5 but I also feel we could talk of an edition 2.5 (with The Player's Option supplements) and even 1.5 (with Unearthed Arcana, the Dungeoneer and Wilderness survival guides).
Skills & Powers offered so many options to fine-tune 2e to each table's preferences. Though it took a lot of experience with 2e to impliment those options well. It wouldn't be easy to start up a new group on 2.5 without a campaign or two getting familiar with 2e basic.
Essentially each revision of AD&D presents something different:
2nd edition its world and setting books. They really realised how popular their campaign worlds were, and brought out more setting specific books than ever before, really defining how weird the cosmos of D&D could get.
3.x then is all about character options, customisation and flexibility. It builds on the plentyful splat books of 2e in a more coherant way, and creates the most comprehensive fantasy RPG of all time.
4e then has the best tactical elements. This was important in 3rd, but 4th takes it to an extreme, creating the most balanced and elegant combat system D&D has ever had. It actually doesn't "stop" you from doing roleplaying as much as some claim, it just wasn't the focus of the way their modules were laid out, and since not everyone reads the DMG it didn't really come across that you could still do all of that.
5e's greatest strength is its accessibility. It is quick to pick up and play, the single best jumping on point for new players, and can capture the feel of most of the previous games. It doesn't have the depth of any of them, whether that be in customising itself for variant worlds and stories, providing endless character options, or providing the tactical depth of 4e. However each prior edition took those to extremes, so 5e has an absolutely appropriate level of depth.
Fantastic work! This is required watching for D&D Fans.
I'm a 4e fan. It's my favorite although I am now discovering AD&D 2e after learning how THAC0 works.
I think a lot of the complaints about 4e come from people who have never played the game. It's sin, if it has one, is that it's very Transparent about it being a game and through its Presentation is put the game of D&D in your face where other editions are presented in a more story focused look and less a game look.
Basic, Expert & Companion sets were where I first truly cut my teeth on D&D, but fell in love with AD&D (1E) not long after. That said, I feel that 2nd Edition is where it truly hit its stride, largely due to the addition of Proficiencies & Specializations....& Kits. From all I have seen, 5E just feels like a more expansive & more modern take on 2nd edition....which I love 🙂
I was always partial to 2nd edition. Lots of source books, lots of options and lots of freedom. Tons of rules you could use, or not use up to the DM's option. It also pushed team work more than some other versions as healing surges and the like did not exist. No one player could really do every thing.
That said it had negative side effects, lots of instant death mechanics and a fairly slow level up system once you hit about 5th level. The XP class rewards and monster XP was nearly worthless. A lich being about 10k xp split to a party was nothing when you need 20-30k xp to level up. A fight that could kill you at almost any moment due to a bad roll...
That said I grew up with that edition mostly. Got tons of the books cheap due to the Wizards of the Coast buy out of TSR. All the TSR books were sold half price brand new in my book stores just as I was getting into the game.
If you enjoyed 2e, come join the campaign at app.roll20.net/join/4827316/B-5uWA. The game is based on the Arduin Grimoires but you'll find most of it familiar. We play online almost every Fri evening at at 7 EST
It's worth mentioning the "neo-clones" of D&D too: 13th Age for 4e, and Shadow of the Demon Lord for 5e. These are more like re-imaginings than clones, though.
Gonna go look up "Shadow of the Demon Lord" now, I kinda hated 5e but can't find anyone to play games with since no one will try anything else these days. Let's see if this is a comfy middle.
@@Ultrox007 What kind of games do you like? Maybe I can give you some recommendations.
@@Jpteryx Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2e, Iron Kingdoms, Mutants & Masterminds 3e, Warhammer 40k Roleplay, and recently picked up Starfinder.
I've always enjoyed in depth character customization and a massive slew of options over "balance" - for me RPGs are exercises in story-telling mixed with games of skill - so crunchy tactical combat rules are quite nice.
And yes, I realize I've said "I love tactical rules and don't care about balance", I typically avoid munchkins on principle so rarely do I have players who try and break their games. I just want to make sure there's a consistent ruling for whatever it is you're imagining so I don't slip up and break world-physics by changing the response because everything is off the cuff.
@@Ultrox007 Cool, I would suggest Pathfinder 2e if you haven't tried it, but you might also like Shadow of the Demon Lord as well.
@@Ultrox007 If you like different settings and want them to seamlessly fit together, I suggest you try Torg Eternity. Not to be confused with the 90's Torg system. It's the same setting, but updated for this century and significantly streamlined.
As Holmes' basic was kinda skipped over I'd throw a shout-out to it and it's retroclone Blueholme, as it has an unique identity, tone and approach to role-playing from what came before and after. Ruleswise it's something of a middleground between OD&D, Basic and Advanced, with some quirks of it's own. It's not as simplified and kid-oriented as later Basic sets, but not as loaded with detail and minute complexity as AD&D. It retains the DYI and "guidlines, not rules" approach of OD&D (compared to the, as writen, more limited rules of later Basic and the tournament-oriented strictness of 1E), but is a more complete and unified, less "assembly needed" product out of the gate.
The Journeymanne edition of Blueholme completes what Holmes intended you to look to OD&D for, allowing play up to level 20, and was made with the help and blessing of Holmes' son Chris whom Holmes initially learned to DM for.
"Check out second edition if you want to learn second edition rules" Wow. Thanks for the massive help there. Really helped me understand the differences.
Are you familiar with THAC0? 2e isn’t too far different from the previous editions, so if you know one of them; you have the gist of all pre 3e editions. Pre 3e had varied saves (more then 3), THAC0, and rules were you needed to roll high for somethings and low for others. 3e and forward is you want as high as possible. The vid would take too long, much like this response, to cover everything.
2nd edition is the golden age of D&D where it was scalable in complexity. It also fixed some of the worst game design issues from 1st edition and cleaned up much of sloppy mechanics, but it also allowed one to add many optional rules to scale up the complexity of the game giving many options to both players and DMs alike. There has never been an edition with as much development, though 3/3.5 comes the closest. In fact, a fair amount of 2nd edition found its way into 3rd edition.
THAC0 is actually quite easy, though it is never explained well. The formula to figure out what you need is your modified THAC0 - the AC of the opponent = the number on the d20. Or if you want to know what AC you hit the formula was your modified THAC0 - the die roll on the d20 = the AC.
The main thing to keep in mind as the main difference between the editions was that while TSR was in control, there were consequences for choices and the choices one made did limit one's options. WotC instead decided to give in to every OP whim any player ever had and throw balance out the window. The game ended up playing more like a video game than how D&D was intended to be played.
I started in the AD&D era.. around 86-87. I always enjoyed the grittier style games. But.. they made me not generally get attached to my characters. To the point of doing off the wall stuff. I enjoyed 3.5 & pathfinder. I never particularly got into fourth edition. I mainly now play 5th edition and so far have yet to get into pathfinder 2.0
I'd be happy to play any of them that aren't 5e. I am glad you took a pretty positive approach to each edition, and highlighted their strengths, and what they're best used for, instead of endlessly banging on about problems people are very aware of.
Man I totally agree. Yet perhaps not 1e. But yeah I thought I was the only one given how some crowd (not in this channel) can be so mindlessly uncritical about 5e and thinks that all prior edition are shit
Easy: Pathfinder first edition. Summoner Class is 100% a class every table top gamer has wanted to play and every video gamer will be able to step right into the mindset for.
2e is where its at.
Nothing like getting a character brutally slain out of nowhere.
Despite being just 17 years old, I started playing D&D with heavily modified BECMI/Advanced rules. We were a bunch of kids, ages 10-12, playing with an older DM (~50) in our local leisure club in the world he had been building with other players since he was 18. I still play the same character there every wednesday, my 13th level Dwarven Fighter.
I've played them all. I started with adbmvanced, then tryed basic. My preferences have been 2nd, and now I find 5th is nice, but a bit quirky. Never cared for third or fourth.
I have been playing D&D since 1977 the white box edition. The best Addition is the 1980 AD&D 1st addition. a game that I still play today! What I have been doing lately is using RIFTS with AD&D to the delight of my comrades. As DM I have taken my players into WW1, WW2, the Modern world, the medieval world is examples of fun and something different. I also make up new monsters that really give them something to think about The whole point is having fun and friendship.
2nd Edition is best..mixed with 3rd Edition. I love the roleplay atmopshere in 2nd edition, skills like cooking, dancing, ancient languages. 3rd edition is too much powerplay but ability score system is good. The best way is to mix both editions in my opinion.
I am not far from your view, 2nd ed with some 1st ed carryover
@@tattooedmillionair Same
indeed 2nd with skills and powers is basily 3e anyways. 3e is basicly a best of 2e material rebacked into a more modern tasting cake.
Started with 2e (and have For Gold and Glory). We had a great time playing that edition and I still have a couple of my old characters almost 3 decades later. But my family and I really enjoy 5e. But I am intrigued by Pathfinder 2. Thank you for putting together this brief guide.
Castles & Crusades should have been mentioned since Gary Gygax, helped to design it.
Can't wait for the next video. I devoured your content as if there was no tomorrow. You're my favorite youtube channel atm, and learning about the story of my favorite RPG system is awesome! I'm dming a 3.5 game atm, but i hope to run ADND2e soon. Keep up the good work!
My preferred edition is Pathfinder 1e. I love the level of customization and the Paladin, my favorite class of all time got a lot of love in PF.
Gotta love that smite evil/chaos/law/good lasting 24 hours or until your next rest.
Gotta love smite lasting 24hours
Love the Mercies mechanic.
@@30noir Love the mercies. I picked suboptimal ones for my first Paladin for roleplay purposes, he became a Paladin to help others, so I picked disease and had an extra mercy feat for poison.
I started playing in 1978 with 1st ed, loved it, but dropped out of RPGs for many years due to life, job, kids, etc. Just starting to jump back in, and am reviewing all of the intervening editions to see what may be the best fit. So I did enjoy this overview, and it's avoidance of taking a stand in the "Edition Wars".
I do think that 4th would fit my playing style best, coming from a board wargaming and miniatures background. The problem is that there are not a lot of DMs still running that edition.
I think one of the biggest things running against 4th edition was the poor promotion, and sub standard explanation of many key new concepts in the edition, as well as minimal playtesting of the powers and how they interact. While they started to correct some of this with the Essentials line, it was too little, too late.
Speaking of powers, the one thing that I think was misleading in the video was the ongoing misunderstanding regarding this concept in 4th. While some of the powers are magical, the ones that apply to the martial classes are better understood as heroic fighting abilities, beyond the "I swing my sword, and hit something". It's in explaining these powers (and what they actually represent in real world terms) to new 4th edition players is where WOC fell down badly.
I will always prefer AD&D 2E. Yeah, the math was sideways and OP murderhobos ran rampant, but the possibilities were endless and there were optional rules for everything.
I have been using 2nd edition for more than 3 decades and have yet to see a murderhobo in any game. The math is slightly more complicated, especially when calculating the actual size of a fireball (based on volume), but the options and setting material has never been matched.
The only real downside was that everything was so scattered amongst the various books making it a scavenger hunt to find things sometimes.
@@craigtucker1290 lol the group I ran with was a bit Monty Hall. Tons of magical items, to the point that when I quit the group; I removed more than half the items for the sake of them being superfluous. My DM was a good one for the murderhobo dungeons. Just room after room of random monsters, thrown into a dungeon, with no rhyme or reason. 100 troglodytes in one room. 30 bugbears in another. 6 characters in the party. Lol.
@@sandeman1776 My first DM was like that. Gave out a girdle or storm giant, a +6 bow made for that strength, and a solar's quiver all at 6th level. He didn't understand why the game wasn't fun anymore...
Also had an "encounter against 10 dragons (all of them very old or older) that I somehow won when I shouldn't have. It just breaks that verisimilitude that I am looking for and ruins the game for me. Even to this day I tend to think of the implausibility of such scenarios as you just mentioned with monster living next to each other or traps placed where monsters roam. How are they fed? Why are they there? How do they not set the traps off? I need more than just a DM hand waving the issue or that it is "magic" these days.
It comes down more to DM competency as the main issue as anyone can be a DM, but not everyone should be.
@@craigtucker1290 amen to that. Ever play the campaign adventure "Night Below?" My favorite adventure to run. It introduced my favorite subrace of elves. The Rockseer.
@@sandeman1776 We played part of it back in the day, still have it though I haven't played it in a long time. I do remember the Tanar'ri in the one cave. We didn't use the rockseer elves though since our campaign is mainly based in Forgotten Realms and they are not included in that setting despite having seven elven races not counting half-elves. Though it is possible for the odd one to make an appearance given all the gates that exist in the Realms.
Also crossed over into Planescape as well from time to time. We still use that setting to this day, especially considering that recommendations for Forgotten Realms includes most of the options we really like in the game.
My first introduction to D&D was through the Basic Box set sent to us by my older sister in college. I was around 10 at the time and quite a fan of board games. Going through the rules, I found them very complex (compared to a board game), but was fascinated by all the different spells. Then I found out how limited the Wizards were. We never did play that game.
Years later, a friend introduces me to the GURPS system and runs a modern day campaign. I enjoy this enough to purchase the main book (an interesting system that needs some work). Another friend invites me over to an AD&D game that they're running as a new GM. I end up not enjoying that; though I put the blame on the fantasy setting rather than the newbie GM (I'm still good friends with them).
Shadowrun is a mixture of fantasy and cyberpunk and I fell in love with the world (not so much the system). I ended up getting a lot of the adventure and splat books. Then they came out with a fantasy "prequel" (5,000 or so years in the past) called, "Earthdawn" which I was hesitant about due to the setting. However, I read a free trial adventure and was fascinated by it (basically post-apocalypse/horror with the apocalypse being evil spirits from the astral plane). I still play various games with the group I hooked up with for Earthdawn.
I don't remember exactly how I got started with 3.0, but I know I was loaned a PHB and was really impressed with the rules and how they worked. Overall, I enjoyed 3.0 and even more enjoyed 3.5 when it came out. I spent a LOT of time in this system and own a LOT of their books.
I was a bit hesitant (again) for 4.0, but that's what my group was playing, so that's what I got. I liked some aspects of it, but it really seemed to be more of a CCG (Collectable Card Game) than an RPG. Indeed, it felt to me that all the role-playing aspects were drained out of it. That being said, I did have some fun games in that system (plus the "Fell's Five" comic series is in that world and it is a LOT of fun).
I actually rather like 5e. Though I balked a bit at the cost of the books (but then, EVERYTHING is expensive now days), it seems they've made a very conscious effort to bring back the RPG element of it (though, sadly, some of those elements tend to get ignored by our group). It also simplifies a lot of rules (I also like some of the changes).
Overall, I think 5e is the best of the systems, though I have no problem playing in a 3.5e game with one of my groups (I'm very used to the rules).
aaye youre not dead that's great. really enjoy your videos
Error: The 1977 Basic Dungrons & Dragons rules set written by neurosurgeon John E Holmes was not meant as a lead in to the original game, but was meant to be a starting point leading towards AD&D,.
Because AD&D was not fully compiled at that time, there were odd interfaces, but although the taces had "most vommon" defaults the option of playing other classes was mentioned, as was the OD&D freeflowing style, in that the option of playing a centaur or samurai, or whatever else a player could talk a DM 8nto allowing.
It also mentions sub classes that didn't make it into AD&D, such as the witch.
My group and I loved the transition to 4E, it had some of the best fluff material ever written.I wasn't happy with WOTCs online support of the game and its broken promises. Another downside is they kept changing the rules of the game anytime more than one person complained about something and had to learn the hard way not to listen to the mob.
I've never played before, been intimidated by it due to horrible luck with die rolls. A friend and I have been moving away from competitive games like magic the gathering... so I picked up a 5th edition players handbook and some beginner set that the guy at the game store suggested. Im glad that in order to play we only need some books and paper rather than paying thousands for cardboard. Lol We haven't played yet, but I've been watching a lot of videos and reading the book. Thank you for the informative video on the different editions!
Would love to see more updates to the channel. Really enjoying the content.
Very good video, thank you. I did BX and 1E back in the day. If I were going back.. Osric or go outside to T&T or Talislanta.
I miss ur videos.....): I need more. My fav channel
I love the way that you put together each episode. It is like watching a documentary made by someone who really loves the game. Please keep it up.
wish he came back and made more retro videos, they were awesome
I mostly play 3.x while I mix 3.0 with 3.5/Pathfinder but also use 2nd a lot. With the 4th Wizards wrecked up D&D for me like they did f.a. in the Forgotten Realms with the Spellplague. Now they are fixing what they messed by bringing the 5th. In the FR they jump massive to the 15th C. and correct the events that many player criticized. The 5th is ok, but for me as a veteran player with over 20 years of experience it is to simple and way to casual. Its "I play D&D!" sounds like "I can order a McMenu!". It is beginner friendlier as all others but I miss the complexety that you should know you class and be your charakter rather than do so. For me a massive point of critic is the heavily monetization and commercialization that Wizards started with the 4th. Melk the cow till she is dead, than sell the cadaver for a high price, buy two new cows and restart repeat until you be tooked over by Disney or Amazon.